Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of weekly training load and acute:chronic workload ratio methods to estimate change in training load in running.

CONTEXT: Before examining the impact of training load on injury risk in runners, it is important to gain insight in the differences between methods that are used to measure change in training load.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences between four methods to calculate 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 averages (EWMA).

DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study.

SETTING: This 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 GPS training data.

PARTICIPANTS: Runners who registered for running events (distances 10-42.195 kilometers) in the Netherlands.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.

RESULTS: 430 participants (73.3% men; age 44.3 years) shared their GPS training data with in total 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 increase in training load. Of the training sessions with significant increase in training load, 43.0% expressed in the weekly training load method showed a difference with the coupled RA and EWMA method. Training sessions with significant increase in training load based on the coupled RA method showed 100% overlap with the uncoupled RA and EWMA method.

CONCLUSIONS: The difference in 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 RRI risk is needed.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app