Study note • PMID 36818970
Does a greater training load increase the risk of injury and illness in ultramarathon runners? : A prospective, descriptive, longitudinal design.
Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.
ELI5
In plain language
To determine if there are any associations between injury and illness incidences and training loads among ultramarathon runners in the 12 week period preceding an ultramarathon event and the… (controlled study; runners).
Results section: no clear change in Injury risk under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: To determine if there are any associations between injury and illness incidences and training loads among ultramarathon runners in the 12 week period preceding an ultramarathon event and the…
- • Results section: no clear change in Injury risk under the tested conditions.
- • Population: runners.
- • Protocol cues (full paper): 12 weeks • 16 weeks • 1000 hours.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: injury, load.
- • Dose/time/duration cues found in the full paper: 12 weeks • 16 weeks • 1000 hours.
- • Outcomes: Injury risk.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it helps, and who should skip it
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (runners) working on injury risk.
- • Athletes who can measure Injury risk with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should skip
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: controlled study.
- • Population: runners.
- • Outcomes measured: Injury risk.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 12 week • 16 weeks • 30 km.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 36818970 (2020) — South African journal of sports medicine.
Full paper
What the full paper adds
- • Participants (paper): runners.
- • More protocol detail (paper): 12 weeks • 16 weeks • 1000 hours.
- • Results section: no clear change in Injury risk under the tested conditions.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“The overall injury incidence was five per 1000 training hours and the overall illness incidence was 16 per 1000 training days.”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations & bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Coaching beta
Get a plan that adapts to your life.
Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research-backed protocols and evidence grades for endurance performance — built for athletes.
Injury risk performance research
Injury risk is mostly about load errors — spikes, monotony, and ignoring pain signals.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.
Injury risk research for endurance athletes
Most injury risk comes from load spikes and insufficient tissue tolerance — manage both.