Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Training patterns associated with injury in New York City Marathon runners
  1. Brett G Toresdahl1,
  2. Jordan D Metzl1,
  3. James Kinderknecht1,
  4. Kathryn McElheny1,
  5. Polly de Mille2,
  6. Brianna Quijano1,
  7. Mark A Fontana3,4
  1. 1Primary Sports Medicine Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, USA
  2. 2Sports Rehabilitation and Performance Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3Center for Analytics, Modeling, and Performance, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brett G Toresdahl, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA; toresdahlb{at}hss.edu

Abstract

Objective Training patterns are commonly implicated in running injuries. The purpose of this study was to measure the incidence of injury and illness among marathon runners and the association of injuries with training patterns and workload.

Methods Runners registered for the New York City Marathon were eligible to enrol and prospectively monitored during the 16 weeks before the marathon, divided into 4-week ‘training quarters’ (TQ) numbered TQ1–TQ4. Training runs were tracked using Strava, a web and mobile platform for tracking exercise. Runners were surveyed at the end of each TQ on injury and illness, and to verify all training runs were recorded. Acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) was calculated by dividing the running distance in the past 7 days by the running distance in the past 28 days and analysed using ratio thresholds of 1.3 and 1.5.

Results A total of 735 runners participated, mean age 41.0 (SD 10.7) and 46.0% female. Runners tracked 49 195 training runs. The incidence of injury during training was 40.0% (294/735), and the incidence of injury during or immediately after the marathon was 16.0% (112/699). The incidence of illness during training was 27.2% (200/735). Those reporting an initial injury during TQ3 averaged less distance/week during TQ2 compared with uninjured runners, 27.7 vs 31.9 miles/week (p=0.018). Runners reporting an initial injury during TQ1 had more days when the ACWR during TQ1 was ≥1.5 compared with uninjured runners (injured IQR (0–3) days vs uninjured (0–1) days, p=0.009). Multivariable logistic regression for training injuries found an association with the number of days when the ACWR was ≥1.5 (OR 1.06, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.10), p=0.002).

Conclusion Increases in training volume ≥1.5 ACWR were associated with more injuries among runners training for a marathon. These findings can inform training recommendations and injury prevention programmes for distance runners.

  • Running
  • Marathon

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

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.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @bretttoresdahl

  • Contributors BGT, responsible for the overall content as guarantor, concept, design, acquisition of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, approval of the final version. JDM: concept, design, critical revising, approval of the final version. JK: concept, critical revising, approval of the final version. KM: concept, interpretation of data, critical revising, approval of the final versionde PdM: design, critical revising, approval of the final version. BQ: design, acquisition of data, critical revising, approval of the final version. MAF: design, acquisition of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, critical revising, approval of the final version.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests BGT is an associated editor for BJSM.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.