Abstract
BackgroundInjury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently.Methods/designThe Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1–3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069).DiscussionThe Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT02349373 – January 23, 2015.
Highlights
Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies
The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed
Recreational runners as a group are characterized by a large heterogeneity, especially concerning running experience and training habits
Summary
Run Clever is the first randomized trial to investigate how a running schedule focused on running intensity compared with a running schedule focused on running volume influences the overall risk of injury and the type of injuries sustained. The present trial defines the population as recreational runners, using the inclusion criteria of an average weekly frequency between 1 and 3 running sessions the past 6 months. The baseline information is collected through the online training diary, making data collection less time consuming for both participants and investigators This gives us reason to assume that such a large scale inclusion is possible. If the distance was increased to 1000 m, the RMS of the average pace in minutes per kilometer was 3 – 5 s per kilometer [51] Based on this information, it seems feasible to use GPS to quantify running exposure data on running volume (kilometers) and running intensity (minutes per kilometers).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
