You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Evidence is needed to determine if there is a better way to determine the acute:chronic workload
  1. J A Sampson1,
  2. H H K Fullagar2,3,4,
  3. A Murray2
  1. 1Centre for Human and Applied Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Department of Athletics (Football), University of Oregon, Leo Harris Pkwy Drive, Eugene, Oregon, USA
  3. 3Institute of Sport and Preventive Medicine, Saarland University, Saarbrucken, Germany
  4. 4Sport and Exercise Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney, Lindfield, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr JA Sampson, Centre for Human and Applied Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, NSW 2522, Australia; jsampson{at}uow.edu.au

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097085

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    A series of letters have argued for alternatives to acute:chronic workloads or the methods by which the ratio is calculated when predicting injury risks. Based on the hypothetical data presented by Menaspa,1 Williams et al,2 argue that an exponentially weighted moving average (EMWA) to emphasise the importance of workloads towards the end of the calculation cycle may be more appropriate. A case is presented in one example (athlete 3) where EWMA calculates a greater injury risk than rolling averages …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Hugh Fullagar @HughFullagar and Andrew Murray @cudgie

    • Contributors JAS prepared the first and final drafts; HHKF and AM assisted in developing rationale and final edits.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.