Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32991701›Full record

ArticleJournal of athletic training2020

Training Load and Its Role in Injury Prevention, Part I: Back to the Future.

Franco M Impellizzeri, Paolo Menaspà, Aaron J Coutts, Judd Kalkhoven, Miranda J Menaspà

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of athletic training, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Why do we have a musculoskeletal injury? - Beyond biomechanics.Sports medicine and health science · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Franco M ImpellizzeriFaculty of Health, Human Performance Research Centre and School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Paolo Menaspà
Aaron J CouttsCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
Judd KalkhovenFaculty of Health, Human Performance Research Centre and School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Miranda J MenaspàAustralian Institute of Sport, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney · AUACT GovernmentEdith Cowan University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this 2-part commentary series is† to explain why we believe our ability to control injury risk by manipulating training load (TL) in its current state is an illusion and why the foundations of this illusion are weak and unreliable. In part 1, we introduce the training process framework and contextualize the role of TL monitoring in the injury-prevention paradigm. In part 2, we describe the conceptual and methodologic pitfalls of previous authors who associated TL and injury in ways that limited their suitability for the derivation of practical recommendations. The first important step in the training process is developing the training program: the practitioner develops a strategy based on available evidence, professional knowledge, and experience. For decades, exercise strategies have been based on the fundamental training principles of overload and progression. Training-load monitoring allows the practitioner to determine whether athletes have completed training as planned and how they have coped with the physical stress. Training load and its associated metrics cannot provide a quantitative indication of whether particular load progressions will increase or decrease the injury risk, given the nature of previous studies (descriptive and at best predictive) and their methodologic weaknesses. The overreliance on TL has moved the attention away from the multifactorial nature of injury and the roles of other important contextual factors. We argue that no evidence supports the quantitative use of TL data to manipulate future training with the purpose of preventing injury. Therefore, determining "how much is too much" and how to properly manipulate and progress TL are currently subjective decisions based on generic training principles and our experience of adjusting training according to an individual athlete's response. Our message to practitioners is to stop seeking overly simplistic solutions to complex problems and instead embrace the risks and uncertainty inherent in the training process and injury prevention.

Indexed as

Physical Conditioning, HumanAthletic InjuriesCumulative Trauma DisordersExerciseHumansNeeds AssessmentResearch DesignRisk AdjustmentRisk ManagementSports Medicineclinical reasoningpracticeresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID32991701
PMCPMC7534945
OpenAlexW3090400297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.