There is strong evidence of an association between slow running time on a set distance. These studies were conducted largely in military basic training or equivalent.
There is strong evidence of an association between poor intermittent run tests and increased risk of injury. Poor performers were 6x more likely to suffer an injury.
There is insufficient evidence of an association between MAGT and injury risk. Two good studies failed to find any significant association in professional soccer players and US Army trainees.
There is limited evidence for distance covered and overuse injury. Finnish military conscripts that ran the least distance were 1.4x more likely to experience an overuse injury.
It seems that there is enough evidence to use aerobic fitness as an indicator of injury risk. Several methods may be used, and they appear to be valid in several types of populations.
Coaches, athletes and health care professionals should be cautious with how they use this data. While the data may indicate a hypothetical risk, risk should be assessed on an individual level.
Can your ability to run a mile predict your risk for developing an injury?
Injuries to the musculoskeletal system are the leading cause of lost duty days in military service members, and are the most common cause for ER visits in athletes and first responders. There is a large economic burden and potential for long term health complications associated with these types of injuries.
While some risk factors including age and gender cannot be modified and are associated with increased risk, other risk factors are. Training load, footwear and physical fitness are three areas that can be modified with intervention. Physical fitness is defined as a combination of cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular endurance, power, strength & flexibility.
Of important note, is that these values are not definitive. Being outside of a hypothetical “high risk” category, does not mean you will never be injured. Similarly, just because you are in a “high risk” category, does not mean you shouldn’t participate in sports or join a career that requires a high level of fitness.
The categories are divided into what type of aerobic test was considered, the level of evidence for determining risk assessment, and other pertinent information. For the sake of keeping things simple to digest, I will keep the description brief and delve into the geeky science stuff. If you wish to read the original article, you can find it here.
There is strong evidence of an association between slow running time on a set distance. These studies were conducted largely in military basic training or equivalent.
There is strong evidence of an association between poor intermittent run tests and increased risk of injury. Poor performers were 6x more likely to suffer an injury.
There is insufficient evidence of an association between MAGT and injury risk. Two good studies failed to find any significant association in professional soccer players and US Army trainees.
There is limited evidence for distance covered and overuse injury. Finnish military conscripts that ran the least distance were 1.4x more likely to experience an overuse injury.
It seems that there is enough evidence to use aerobic fitness as an indicator of injury risk. Several methods may be used, and they appear to be valid in several types of populations.
Coaches, athletes and health care professionals should be cautious with how they use this data. While the data may indicate a hypothetical risk, risk should be assessed on an individual level.