A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing the Impact of Strengthening-Based Running Training with Only Running on the Incidence of Running-Related Injuries among Novice Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Running-related injuries (RRI) are common in novice runners. Reducing early training running volume with strengthening activities may improve RRI without impeding running performance. Objectives: 1. Gather feasibility data for a randomized, controlled trial comparing a strengthening-based program to a conventional running program; 2. Assess RRI; and 3. Assess running performance. Methods: Seventy-four university students (38 females, 21 ± 2.3 years, 68.2 ± 10.8 kg, BMI: 22.6 ± 2.97), all novice runners, were randomized in two groups, i.e., a strengthening and running group (INT) and a running group (CON). The completed sessions, RRI, dropout, and maximal aerobic speed were recorded through an online application. Results: The INT group had 52.6% attrition, while the CON group had 41.7%. The INT group had 56.6% adherence, while the CON group had 45.7%. The Chi-square test showed no significant difference in RRI incidence across groups (CHI2 = 2.958, p value = 0.08). A two-way ANOVA showed no significant difference in maximal aerobic speed across groups (p = 0.822) or before and after training (p = 0.304). Conclusions: This pilot study confirmed the feasibility of this randomized, controlled trial with a needed sample size of 194. However, novice runners had greater attrition rates when starting. Based on those limited data, strengthening activities that replaced running volume did not improve RRI or maximal aerobic speed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".