Abstract
I read the letter ‘Time to bin the term ‘overuse’ injury: is ‘training load error’ a more accurate term?’ with great interest.1 I agree with the authors that changes in training load (TL) could increase injury risk and I share their concern relating to periods of low/no loads. However, the terminology suggested by Drew and Purdam ‘errors in training load prescription’ may not be ideal. In fact, despite the potentially flawless TL prescription, some spikes in load may be due to variables that are out of control, such as variability in the demands of competitions,2 and cannot be avoided. Moreover, the term ‘error’ leads to the idea that a supposedly erroneous acute:chronic TL ratio causes injuries, instead of causing an increase in injury risk [...].
RAS ID
22329
Document Type
Letter to the Editor
Date of Publication
2017
School
School of Medical and Health Sciences
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Limited
Comments
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of:
Menaspà P. (2017). Are rolling averages a good way to assess training load for injury prevention? British Journal of Sports Medicine. 51(7), 618-619.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096131