Source notes

Can mileage, pace or training frequency explain who develops a running injury? Researchers examined 36 articles involving 23,047 runners. About 26% sustained a running-related injury across the included studies, but follow-up periods and injury definitions varied widely. Evidence linking injuries with distance, duration, frequency, intensity or recent training changes was conflicting. Some studies associated greater training with more injuries, others with fewer, and others found no clear relationship. The authors therefore could not identify a universal set of training parameters or progression rules that reliably reduced injury risk across these different running populations.

The overall injury proportion is not a yearly probability for every runner. Studies followed participants for different lengths of time, and a minor problem counted as injury in some studies but not others. Differences between novice, recreational and competitive runners also reflect exposure and study methods. The mixed findings do not establish that training has no role; they show that isolated training numbers incompletely describe a complex outcome.

How Does This Show Up in Real Life?

A running app can show a weekly mileage total without showing how that workload fits the person completing it. The authors argue that training history and individual responses deserve attention alongside external load. A percentage increase may mean something different for runners with different starting volumes and recovery circumstances. The paper does not justify a universal weekly 10% rule, nor does it supply a better fixed number. It mainly changes how confidently such advice should be presented. For someone comparing training plans, the relevant question is whether the claim rests on comparable runners and an actual injury outcome. A simple label such as gradual progression does not, by itself, demonstrate that a plan was tested or that it will prevent injury.

Only five studies used objective positioning-device data to measure training. Many relied on self-report, and fewer than 40% used injury definitions consistent with a cited consensus. Follow-up ranged from roughly one month to five years. These differences prevented a combined estimate of the training-injury association, while sleep, recovery and other personal factors were often poorly measured.

Why We Cite It

Alpekin can use this paper when explaining why injury statistics from different running programs cannot be compared at face value. It supports checking the observation period, case definition and runner category before presenting a risk figure, making the reporting of prevention claims more transparent and useful to readers.

This evidence is a reason for careful interpretation, not dismissal of training management. The paper exposes the limits of simple prediction from a schedule alone. More consistent measurement and attention to interacting factors are needed before specific program features can be called reliably protective.