Trial reportJournal of athletic training2024
Comparison of Weekly Training Load and Acute: Chronic Workload Ratio Methods to Estimate Change in Training Load in Running.
Trial report in Journal of athletic training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Injury Incidences related to Acute-to-Chronic Workload Ratios in Taekwondo: A Prospective Study with a 3-Year Follow-Up.Journal of athletic training · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextBefore examining the impact of training load on injury risk in runners, it is important to gain insight into the differences between methods that are used to measure change in training load.
objectiveTo investigate differences between 4 methods when calculating change in training load: (1) weekly training load; (2) acute : chronic workload ratio (ACWR), coupled rolling average (RA); (3) ACWR, uncoupled RA; (4) ACWR, exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA).
designDescriptive epidemiology study.
settingThis study is part of a randomized controlled trial on running injury prevention among recreational runners. Runners received a baseline questionnaire and a request to share global positioning system training data. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsRunners who registered for running events (distances 10-42.195 km) in the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measure was the predefined significant increase in training load (weekly training loads ≥ 30% progression and ACWRs ≥ 1.5), based on training distance. Proportional Venn diagrams visualized the differences between the methods.
resultsA total of 430 participants (73.3% men; mean age = 44.3 ± 12.2 years) shared their global positioning system training data for a total of 22 839 training sessions. For the weekly training load, coupled RA, uncoupled RA, and EWMA method, respectively, 33.4% (95% CI = 32.8, 34.0), 16.2% (95% CI = 15.7, 16.6), 25.8% (95% CI = 25.3, 26.4), and 18.9% (95% CI = 18.4, 19.4) of the training sessions were classified as significant increases in training load. Of the training sessions with significant increases in training load, 43.0% from the weekly training load method were different than the coupled RA and EWMA methods. Training sessions with significant increases in training load based on the coupled RA method showed 100% overlap with the uncoupled RA and EWMA methods.
conclusionsThe difference in the change in training load measured by weekly training load and ACWR methods was high. To validate an appropriate measure of change in training load in runners, future research on the association between training loads and running-related injury risk is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.