Running injuries in novice runners enrolled in different training interventions: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this trial was to evaluate injury risk in novice runners participating in different strength training interventions. This was a pilot randomized controlled trial. Novice runners (n = 129, 18-60 years old, <2 years recent running experience) were block randomized to one of three groups: a "resistance" strength training group, a "functional" strength training group, or a stretching "control" group. The primary outcome was running related injury. The number of participants with complaints and the injury rate (IR = no. injuries/1000 running hours) were quantified for each intervention group. For the first 8 weeks, participants were instructed to complete their training intervention three to five times a week. The remaining 4 months was a maintenance period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01900262. A total of 52 of the 129 (40%) novice runners experienced at least one running related injury: 21 in the functional strength training program, 16 in the resistance strength training program and 15 in the control stretching program. Injury rates did not differ between study groups [IR = 32.9 (95% CI 20.8, 49.3) in the functional group, IR = 31.6 (95% CI 18.4, 50.5) in the resistance group, and IR = 26.7 (95% CI 15.2, 43.2)] in the control group. Although this was a pilot assessment, home-based strength training did not appear to alter injury rates compared to stretching. Future studies should consider methods to minimize participant drop out to allow for the assessment of injury risk. Injury risk in novice runners based on this pilot study will inform the development of future larger studies investigating the impact of injury prevention interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".