English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Over the past 20 years, research on the training-load–injury relationship has grown exponentially. With the benefit of more data, our understanding of the training-performance puzzle has improved. What were we thinking 20 years ago, and how has our thinking changed over time? Although early investigators attributed overuse injuries to excessive training loads, it has become clear that rapid spikes in training load, above what an athlete is accustomed, explain (at least in part) a large proportion of injuries. In this respect, it appears that overuse injuries may arise from athletes being underprepared for the load they are about to perform. However, a question of interest to both athletic trainers (ATs) and researchers is why some athletes sustain injury at low training loads, while others can tolerate much greater training loads? A higher chronic training load and well-developed aerobic fitness and lower body strength appear to moderate the training-injury relationship and provide a protective effect against spikes in load. The training-performance puzzle is complex and dynamic—at any given time, multiple inputs to injury and performance exist. The challenge facing researchers is obtaining large enough longitudinal data sets to capture the time-varying nature of physiological and musculoskeletal capacities and training-load data to adequately inform injury-prevention efforts. The training-performance puzzle can be solved, but it will take collaboration between researchers and clinicians as well as an understanding that efficacy (ie, how training load affects performance and injury in an idealized or controlled setting) does not equate to effectiveness (ie, how training load affects performance and injury in the real-world setting, where many variables cannot be controlled).

The Training-Performance Puzzle: How Can the Past Inform Future Training Directions?