Our friends and collaborators Laurent Malisoux and Daniel Theisen invites the RUNSAFE research group to discuss research, results and issues at the Luxembourg Institute of Health in october!

2017.08.03 | Rasmus Østergaard Nielsen

Date	Thu 05 Oct — Sat 07 Oct
Time	07:30  —  07:31
Location	Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg

From our collaborators at Luxembourg Institute of Health:

"Dear Researchers, The members of the Sports Medicine Research Laboratory (Luxembourg Institute of Health – LIH) are delighted to welcome you to the 3rd Running Injury Science Meeting. The event will be organised in Luxembourg on October 5-7th 2017. We hope that you will enjoy a memorable meeting amongst peers, with opportunities for constructive discussions and socializing in an informal relaxed atmosphere. A warm welcome to Luxembourg!" 
Laurent Malisoux & Daniel Theisen (on behalf of the Sports Medicine Research Laboratory)

Abstracts of the RUNSAFE presentations:

Michael Bertelsen, PhD student
Aarhus University, Denmark

The etiology of running-related injury is important to consider as the effectiveness of a given running-related injury prevention intervention is dependent on whether etiologic factors are readily modifiable and consistent with a biologically plausible causal mechanism. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to present an evidence-informed conceptual framework outlining the multifactorial nature of running-related injury etiology. In the framework, four mutually exclusive parts are presented: (A) Structure-specific capacity when entering a running session; (B) Structure-specific cumulative load per running session; (C) Reduction in the structure-specific capacity during a running session; and, (D) Exceeding the structure-specific capacity. The framework can then be used to inform the design of future running-related injury prevention studies, including the formation of research questions and hypotheses, as well as the monitoring of participation-related and non-participation-related exposures. In addition, future research applications should focus on addressing how changes in one or more exposures influence the risk of running-related injury. This necessitates the investigation of how different factors affect the structure-specific load and/or the load capacity, and the dose-response relationship between running participation and injury risk. Ultimately, this direction allows researchers to move beyond traditional risk factor identification to produce research findings that are not only reliably reported in terms of the observed cause-effect association, but also translatable in practice.

 

Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Post Doc.
Aarhus University, Denmark

Randomized trials have been used in running-related injury research, e.g. GRONORUN 1+2, RUNCLEVER, Motion Control shoe-trial and Trial6. In these trials, attempts to document the effect of a certain exposure on injury development have been made using intention to treat analyses, per protocol analyses, as treated analyses and/or instrumented variable analyses. Although these attempts are outstanding, we should consider if it is possible to document the effect of the exposure (e.g. training program A versus B) on running injury if (i) a large-proportion of runners leave the study prior to end of follow-up; and (ii) if the compliance to the intervention is low?

In this presentation, censoring and compliance will be discussed. We look at data from the GRONORUN 1 trial, in which 532 runners were randomized and allocated to one of the following interventions: 10% program (n=264) and 24% program (n=268). Compliance to the program may be defined using a plus/minus 10% cut off of the time spent running (minutes) listed in the programs. If a runner runs less than 10% or more than 10% of the intended time in one running session, the runner is censored during that week. In this light, the attendees at the Running Injury Science Meeting may consider: How many runners remain in each of the two programs after 8-week follow-up?

The aim of the presentation is to open for a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the randomized trial design and try to respond to the provocative question: Can we use randomized trials in the future…

René Korsgaard Brund, Phd student
Aalborg University, Denmark

Running is characterized by highly repetitive loading, which the body has adapted to, if previous loading have been consistent. Changing running shoes will change the way the load is applied to the musculoskeletal system during running. Since the load may be distributed to vulnerable structures, which have not adapted to the new way the load is applied to the musculoskeletal system during running. Therefore, the change of running shoe may increase the risk of sustaining an injury. The present study describes the changed risk of running-related injuries following a transition to a new pair of neutral running shoes

 

Daniel Ramskov, Lecturer, PhD student
Aarhus University, Denmark

People engaged in recreational running or choosing running as a new and active lifestyle, needs guidance on which running schedules minimizes the injury risk, aiding their chance of an active lifestyle and possibly reversing the increase in people developing a lifestyle disease.11 To develop running schedules minimizing the risk of injury, an understanding of the mechanisms that the different training variables impose on the human body is necessary. Run Clever was designed to investigate the difference in risk of injury in when following a scheduled focused on intensity compared to a schedule focused on volume. The trial was conducted and results will be shared for discussion. 

Camma Damsted, PhD student
Aarhus University, Denmark

Background Participation in half-marathon has been steeply increasing during the past decade. In line, a vast number of half-marathon running schedules has surfaced. Unfortunately, the injury incidence proportion for half-marathoners has been found to exceed 30% during 1-year follow-up. The majority of running-related injuries are suggested to develop from overuse of the runners’ load capacity with injury occurring following insufficient respect of the load capacity due to greater training loads. Owing to an increase of load capacity along with adaptive running training, the runners’ running experience and pace abilities can be used as estimates for load capacity. Since no evidence-based knowledge exist of how to plan appropriate half-marathon running schedules considering the level of running experience and running pace, the aim of ProjectRun21 is to investigate the association between running experience or running pace and the risk of running-related injury.  

 

Attendees / Participants: 

Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg
1) Daniel Theisen, PhD, Professor, Head of Research
2) Laurent Malisoux, PhD, Researcher
3) Christophe Meyer, PhD, Post-Doctoral Researcher
4) Eric Besenius, MSc, Research assistant
5) Paul Gette, MSc, Research assistant

Dept. food and nutrition and sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
6) Stefan Grau, PhD, Professor
7) Jonatan Jungmalm, PhD student

Universidade Cidade de SãoPaulo, Brazil
8) Luiz Hespanhol, Ph.D, Associate Professor
9) Rafael Pimenta, Master Student

University of Massachusets Lowell, USA
10) Alexandre Lopes, Ph.D, Associate Professor

Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
11) Marienke Van Middlekoop, PhD, Associate Professor
12) Tryntsje Fokkema, PhD student

The RUNSAFE research group, Danish Universities
13) Sten Rasmussen, PhD, MD, Clinical Associate Professor
14) Rasmus Nielsen, PhD, Post-Doctoral Researcher
15) Michael Bertelsen, PhD student
16) Daniel Ramskov, Lecturer, PhD student
17) René Korsgaard, PhD student
18) Camma Damsted, PhD student 

 

Abstracts:

The etiology of running-related injury is important to consider as the effectiveness of a given running-related injury prevention intervention is dependent on whether etiologic factors are readily modifiable and consistent with a biologically plausible causal mechanism. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to present an evidence-informed conceptual framework outlining the multifactorial nature of running-related injury etiology. In the framework, four mutually exclusive parts are presented: (A) Structure-specific capacity when entering a running session; (B) Structure-specific cumulative load per running session; (C) Reduction in the structure-specific capacity during a running session; and, (D) Exceeding the structure-specific capacity. The framework can then be used to inform the design of future running-related injury prevention studies, including the formation of research questions and hypotheses, as well as the monitoring of participation-related and non-participation-related exposures. In addition, future research applications should focus on addressing how changes in one or more exposures influence the risk of running-related injury. This necessitates the investigation of how different factors affect the structure-specific load and/or the load capacity, and the dose-response relationship between running participation and injury risk. Ultimately, this direction allows researchers to move beyond traditional risk factor identification to produce research findings that are not only reliably reported in terms of the observed cause-effect association, but also translatable in practice.