Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
That link also doesn't really apply to an 800m run. It dealt with true sprints and used a measure of 9m, not 800m. It didn't deal at all with the difference between an 800m run and a long distance run, which is what we're discussing.
|
Full article.
One part of the study showing the highest risk for injury was comparing distances the athletes ran at a very high intensity. Their threshold was 9m, which is really impractical. The authors talked about it, citing that generally almost all running (unless specifically meant to be) will NOT be very high intensity in a normal training session (for these subjects). So it doesn't dispute the claim.
Related to Azure's erroneous idea that running more distance = more injury.
Quote:
The incidence and relative risk of soft-tissue injury was
lower in players who covered greater distances at very low
(i.e., 0–1 ms21), low (i. e., 1–3 ms21), and moderate(i.e., 3– 5 m s
21) intensities. These findings are in direct
contrast to our hypothesis that greater running volumes
would be associated with a higher incidence of injury
|
And the super confusing part.
Quote:
the higher the acceleration, the lower the risk of
no time loss injuries (0.2 [95% CI 0.1–0.4] for mild
acceleration; 0.3 [95% CI 0.1–0.6] for moderate acceleration;
0.4 [95% CI 0.2–0.8]
|
Fixing the double negative, in other words, the higher the acceleration, the HIGHER the risk of time loss injuries.
The author's conclusion
Quote:
Greater distances covered in very low, low, and moderate speed
running were associated with a lower risk of soft-tissue injury,
whereas greater amounts of very high–velocity running (i.e.,
sprinting) were associated with an increased risk of soft-tissue injury.
|
At any rate, this is one study.
I posted it to highlight that Azure's claims are unfounded. This is a thread for advice, there is no reason to try to deter people from something they want to try.