Quantifying exposure to running for meaningful insights into running-related injuries

Davis, J. J.; Gruber, Allison H.

doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000613

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several winter sports are conducted under harsh conditions, with considerable variation in the external demands posed by the environment [ 78 ]. As with contact team sports, the injury risk is high in winter sports such as alpine skiing, freeskiing, and snowboard [ 19 , 79 , 80 ]. Research on these sports relevant for sport-specific demands and injury prevention has been done under controlled laboratory settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Training load or stress is within this context typically defined as the sum of external (training volume and intensity) and internal (physiological parameters and perceived exertion) loads combined [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Many of these studies have used wearable sensors to monitor the total exposure over time—during a training session, a period of training or a whole season, most often in team sports [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ], and in running [ 14 , 19 , 20 ]. However, within the sports domain, numerous types of sports and activities involve shock impacts that may be harmful from just one or a limited number of impacts—alpine skiing, running, gymnastics, team sports such as soccer, volleyball, and different types of invasion sports such as rugby and football, to mention a few.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Eitzen

Renberg

Færevik

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shock impacts during activity may cause damage to the joints, muscles, bones, or inner organs. To define thresholds for tolerable impacts, there is a need for methods that can accurately monitor shock impacts in real-life settings. Therefore, the main aim of this scoping review was to present an overview of existing methods for assessments of shock impacts using wearable sensor technology within two domains: sports and occupational settings. Online databases were used to identify papers published in 2010–2020, from which we selected 34 papers that used wearable sensor technology to measure shock impacts. No studies were found on occupational settings. For the sports domain, accelerometry was the dominant type of wearable sensor technology utilized, interpreting peak acceleration as a proxy for impact. Of the included studies, 28 assessed foot strike in running, head impacts in invasion and team sports, or different forms of jump landings or plyometric movements. The included studies revealed a lack of consensus regarding sensor placement and interpretation of the results. Furthermore, the identified high proportion of validation studies support previous concerns that wearable sensors at present are inadequate as a stand-alone method for valid and accurate data on shock impacts in the field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Eitzen

Renberg

Færevik

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The emergence of both commercial and research-grade wearable technology (eg, inertial measurement units) presents the opportunity for continuous monitoring (step by step) of biomechanical factors during running. Wearable sensors can quantify various biomechanical data such as tibial shock, foot-strike angle, ground contact time, and leg stiffness, among others, 12,33,41 to enable a more precise quantification of training stress. Incorporating biomechanical data from wearable devices will give greater depth of knowledge about how running mechanics change in different environments, fatigue states, types of footwear, and running surfaces, and over the course of a training program.…”

Section: Emerging Moderating Factors Of Running Training Loadsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Paquette¹,

Napier²,

Willy³

et al. 2020

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U BACKGROUND: Quantifying total running distance is valuable, as it comprises some aspects of the mechanical/neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and perceptual/psychological loads that contribute to training stress and is partially predictive of distancerunning success. However, running distance is only one aspect contributing to training stress. U CLINICAL QUESTION: The purpose of this commentary is to highlight (1) problems with only using running distance to quantify running training and training stress, (2) the importance of alternative approaches to quantify and monitor training stress, (3) moderating factors (effect-measure modifiers) of training loads, and (4) the challenges of monitoring training stress to assess injury risks. U KEY RESULTS: Training stress is influenced by external (ie, application of mechanical load) and internal (ie, physiological/psychological effort) training load factors. In running, some commonly used external load factors include volume and pace, while physiological internal load factors include session rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, or blood lactate level. Running distance alone might vastly obscure the cumulative training stress on different training days and, ultimately, misrepresent overall training stress. With emerging and novel wearable technology that quantifies external load metrics beyond volume or pace, the future of training monitoring should have an ever-increasing emphasis on biomechanical external load metrics, coupled with internal (ie, physiological/psychological) load metrics. U CLINICAL APPLICATION: It may be difficult to change the running culture's obsession with weekly distance, but advanced and emerging methods to quantify running training discussed in this commentary will, with research confirmation, improve training monitoring and injury risk stratification.

show abstract

“…Despite a large body of evidence using shank mounted accelerometry for field-based tibial loading measurement (Rice et al, 2018;Verheul et al, 2020;Willy, 2018), there is limited evidence regarding the reliability of such devices (Sheerin et al, 2019). While laboratory-grade accelerometers are attractive for datadriven insights, automatically generated metrics are required to meet the rapid data processing and output needs of clinicians and coaches (Davis & Gruber, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-unit reliability of IMU Step metrics using IMeasureU Blue Trident inertial measurement units for running-based team sport tasks

Armitage

Beato

McErlain-Naylor

2021

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the inter-unit reliability of IMU Step biomechanical load monitoring metrics using IMeasureU Blue Trident inertial measurement units in tasks common to running-based team sports. Knowledge of variability between units is required before researchers and practitioners can make informed decisions on "true" differences between limbs. Sixteen male college soccer players performed five running-based tasks, generating 224 trials and 17,012 steps. Data were analysed for each task and for the whole session, investigating six IMU Step metrics: step count; impact load; bone stimulus; and low, medium and high intensity steps. Inter-unit reliability was excellent (ICC ≥ 0.90) for 21 out of 26 metrics, and good (0.83 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.86) for all other metrics except for Yo-Yo impact load (ICC = 0.79) which was acceptable. These findings confirm the inter-unit reliability of IMU Step metrics using IMeasureU Blue Trident inertial measurement units for running-based team sports. Now that inter-unit variability has been quantified, researchers and practitioners can use this information when interpreting inter-limb differences for monitoring external biomechanical training load.

show abstract

Quantifying exposure to running for meaningful insights into running-related injuries

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Moving Beyond Weekly “Distance”: Optimizing Quantification of Training Load in Runners

Inter-unit reliability of IMU Step metrics using IMeasureU Blue Trident inertial measurement units for running-based team sport tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About