Faculty of Health, Human Performance Research Centre and School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
J Athl Train. 2020 Sep 1;55(9):885-892. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-500-19.
The purpose of this 2-part commentary series is† to explain why we believe our ability to control injury risk by manipulating training load (TL) in its current state is an illusion and why the foundations of this illusion are weak and unreliable. In part 1, we introduce the training process framework and contextualize the role of TL monitoring in the injury-prevention paradigm. In part 2, we describe the conceptual and methodologic pitfalls of previous authors who associated TL and injury in ways that limited their suitability for the derivation of practical recommendations. The first important step in the training process is developing the training program: the practitioner develops a strategy based on available evidence, professional knowledge, and experience. For decades, exercise strategies have been based on the fundamental training principles of overload and progression. Training-load monitoring allows the practitioner to determine whether athletes have completed training as planned and how they have coped with the physical stress. Training load and its associated metrics cannot provide a quantitative indication of whether particular load progressions will increase or decrease the injury risk, given the nature of previous studies (descriptive and at best predictive) and their methodologic weaknesses. The overreliance on TL has moved the attention away from the multifactorial nature of injury and the roles of other important contextual factors. We argue that no evidence supports the quantitative use of TL data to manipulate future training with the purpose of preventing injury. Therefore, determining "how much is too much" and how to properly manipulate and progress TL are currently subjective decisions based on generic training principles and our experience of adjusting training according to an individual athlete's response. Our message to practitioners is to stop seeking overly simplistic solutions to complex problems and instead embrace the risks and uncertainty inherent in the training process and injury prevention.
本评论系列共有两部分,目的是解释我们为何认为,目前通过操纵训练负荷(TL)来控制受伤风险的能力是一种错觉,以及为何这种错觉的基础薄弱且不可靠。在第 1 部分中,我们介绍了训练过程框架,并阐述了 TL 监测在预防损伤模式中的作用。在第 2 部分中,我们描述了之前的作者在将 TL 与损伤联系起来时所存在的概念和方法上的缺陷,这些联系限制了他们提出实际建议的适用性。训练过程的第一步是制定训练计划:从业者根据现有证据、专业知识和经验制定策略。几十年来,运动策略一直基于超负荷和渐进性这两个基本的训练原则。训练负荷监测使从业者能够确定运动员是否按计划完成了训练,以及他们如何应对身体压力。鉴于以往研究的性质(描述性的,最多是预测性的)及其方法上的弱点,训练负荷及其相关指标无法提供特定负荷进展是否会增加或降低受伤风险的定量指示。对 TL 的过度依赖,使得人们对损伤的多因素性质和其他重要背景因素的关注减少。我们认为,没有证据支持使用 TL 数据来操纵未来的训练,以达到预防损伤的目的。因此,目前确定“多少算太多”以及如何正确地操纵和推进 TL 是基于通用训练原则和我们根据个体运动员的反应调整训练的经验的主观决策。我们给从业者的信息是,停止寻找过于简单的方法来解决复杂的问题,而是要接受训练过程和损伤预防中固有的风险和不确定性。