ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2025
How much running is too much? Identifying high-risk running sessions in a 5200-person cohort study.
Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mind to Move: A Narrative Review of Individualized Running Biomechanics Beyond the Spring-Mass Model.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Baseline Inflammatory Markers as Predictors of Running-Related Injuries: A One-Year Prospective 4HAIE Cohort Study.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Training Load, Mileage, and Perceived Exertion as a Predictive Model of Injury and Illness in Women's Soccer.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe explored whether a spike in running distance during a single session or over 1 week, compared with the preceding period, was associated with increased risk of running-related overuse injury.
methodsAdult runners were recruited for an 18-month cohort study. Three training-related exposures were defined based on a relative change in running distance, using data collected via Garmin devices: (1) session-specific running distance relative to the longest distance run in the past 30 days; (2) 1-week period relative to the preceding 3 weeks using the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR); (3) 1-week period using a week-to-week ratio. Runners were categorised into one of four time-varying states: (1) regression, or up to 10% increase (reference); (2) 'small spike' between >10% and 30% increase; (3) 'moderate spike' between >30% and 100% increase; and (4) 'large spike' >100% increase. Outcome was self-reported overuse running-related injury. A multistate Cox regression model was used to estimate adjusted hazard rate ratios (HRR).
resultsAmong 5205 runners (mean age 45.8 years, SD=10.4; 22% female), a total of 1820 (35%) sustained a running-related injury during 588 071 sessions. Significantly increased rates were identified for small spikes (HRR=1.64 (95% CI: 1.31 to 2.05, p=0.01)), moderate spikes (HRR=1.52 (95% CI: 1.16 to 2.00, p<0.01)) and large spikes (HRR=2.28 (95% CI: 1.50 to 3.48, p<0.01)) in single-session running distance. A negative dose-response relationship was observed for the ACWR. No relationship was identified for the week-to-week ratio.
conclusionA significant increase in the rate of running-related overuse injury was found when the distance of a single running session exceeded 10% of the longest run undertaken in the last 30 days.
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.