Descriptive analysis of injury types and incidence during futsal preseason across different competitive levels

Background There is dogma that higher training load causes higher injury rates. However, there is also evidence that training has a protective effect against injury. For example, team sport athletes who performed more than 18 weeks of training before sustaining their initial injuries were at reduced risk of sustaining a subsequent injury, while high chronic workloads have been shown to decrease the risk of injury. Second, across a wide range of sports, well-developed physical qualities are associated with a reduced risk of injury. Clearly, for athletes to develop the physical capacities required to provide a protective effect against injury, they must be prepared to train hard. Finally, there is also evidence that under-training may increase injury risk. Collectively, these results emphasise that reductions in workloads may not always be the best approach to protect against injury. Main thesis This paper describes the ‘Training-Injury Prevention Paradox’ model; a phenomenon whereby athletes accustomed to high training loads have fewer injuries than athletes training at lower workloads. The Model is based on evidence that non-contact injuries are not caused by training per se, but more likely by an inappropriate training programme. Excessive and rapid increases in training loads are likely responsible for a large proportion of non-contact, soft-tissue injuries. If training load is an important determinant of injury, it must be accurately measured up to twice daily and over periods of weeks and months (a season). This paper outlines ways of monitoring training load (‘internal’ and ‘external’ loads) and suggests capturing both recent (‘acute’) training loads and more medium-term (‘chronic’) training loads to best capture the player's training burden. I describe the critical variable—acute:chronic workload ratio—as a best practice predictor of training-related injuries. This provides the foundation for interventions to reduce players risk, and thus, time-loss injuries. Summary The appropriately graded prescription of high training loads should improve players’ fitness, which in turn may protect against injury, ultimately leading to (1) greater physical outputs and resilience in competition, and (2) a greater proportion of the squad available for selection each week.

Variations in definitions and methodologies have created differences in the results and conclusions obtained from studies of football (soccer) injuries, making interstudy comparisons difficult. Therefore an Injury Consensus Group was established under the auspices of Fédération Internationale de Football Association Medical Assessment and Research Centre. A nominal group consensus model approach was used. A working document on definitions, methodology, and implementation was discussed by the group. Iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to members of the group for comment before the final consensus statement was produced. Definitions of injury, recurrent injury, severity, and training and match exposures in football together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of location, type, diagnosis, and causation are proposed. Proforma for recording players' baseline information, injuries, and training and match exposures are presented. Recommendations are made on how the incidence of match and training injuries should be reported and a checklist of issues and information that should be included in published reports of studies of football injuries is presented.

Background Coaches, sport scientists, clinicians and medical personnel face a constant challenge to prescribe sufficient training load to produce training adaption while minimising fatigue, performance inhibition and risk of injury/illness. Objective The aim of this review was to investigate the relationship between injury and illness and longitudinal training load and fatigue markers in sporting populations. Methods Systematic searches of the Web of Science and PubMed online databases to August 2015 were conducted for articles reporting relationships between training load/fatigue measures and injury/illness in athlete populations. Results From the initial 5943 articles identified, 2863 duplicates were removed, followed by a further 2833 articles from title and abstract selection. Manual searching of the reference lists of the remaining 247 articles, together with use of the Google Scholar ‘cited by’ tool, yielded 205 extra articles deemed worthy of assessment. Sixty-eight studies were subsequently selected for inclusion in this study, of which 45 investigated injury only, 17 investigated illness only, and 6 investigated both injury and illness. This systematic review highlighted a number of key findings, including disparity within the literature regarding the use of various terminologies such as training load, fatigue, injury and illness. Athletes are at an increased risk of injury/illness at key stages in their training and competition, including periods of training load intensification and periods of accumulated training loads. Conclusions Further investigation of individual athlete characteristics is required due to their impact on internal training load and, therefore, susceptibility to injury/illness.