Volume 55: Issue 9

This month's Journal of Athletic Training is a special thematic issue on training load and recovery monitoring and management. The concept of training load and recovery as important variables for mitigating injury risk potential has gained attention based on research highlighting their potential association with injury. As a result, many clinicians seek to better understand strategies for monitoring and managing the training load and recovery behaviors of their patients and clients.

This special issue is a response to our readership's desire to learn more about evidence-based practices for training-load and recovery management. We are pleased to provide a

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 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.

In part 2 of this clinical commentary, we highlight the conceptual and methodologic pitfalls evident in current training-load–injury research. These limitations make these studies unsuitable for determining how to use new metrics such as acute workload, chronic workload, and their ratio for reducing injury risk. The main overarching concerns are the lack of a conceptual framework and reference models that do not allow for appropriate interpretation of the results to define a causal structure. The lack of any conceptual framework also gives investigators too many degrees of freedom, which can dramatically increase the risk of false discoveries and confirmation bias by forcing the interpretation of results toward common beliefs and accepted training principles. Specifically, we underline methodologic concerns relating to (1) measure of exposures, (2) pitfalls of using ratios, (3) training-load measures, (4) time windows, (5) discretization and reference category, (6) injury definitions, (7) unclear analyses, (8) sample size and generalizability, (9) missing data, and (10) standards and quality of reporting. Given the pitfalls of previous studies, we need to return to our practices before this research influx began, when practitioners relied on traditional training principles (eg, overload progression) and adjusted training loads based on athletes' responses. Training-load measures cannot tell us whether the variations are increasing or decreasing the injury risk; we recommend that practitioners still rely on their expert knowledge and experience.

Reliability and Validity of the Functional Assessment of Neurocognition in Sport (FANS): A Paradigm Shift in Post-Concussion Return-to-Sport Decision-Making

Landon B. LempkePhD, ATC,

Benjamin L. BrettPhD, and

Douglas P. TerryPhD,ABPP