Athletic Injury Research: Frameworks, Models and the Need for Causal Knowledge.

Within applied sports science and medicine research, many challenges hinder the establishment and detailed understanding of athletic injury causality as well as the development and implementation of appropriate athletic injury prevention strategies. Applied research efforts are faced with a lack of variable control, while the capacity to compensate for this lack of control through the application of randomised controlled trials is often confronted by a number of obstacles relating to ethical or practical constraints. Such difficulties have led to a large reliance upon observational research to guide applied practice in this area. However, the reliance upon observational research, in conjunction with the general absence of supporting causal inference tools and structures, has hindered both the acquisition of causal knowledge in relation to athletic injury and the development of appropriate injury prevention strategies. Indeed, much of athletic injury research functions on a (causal) model-blind observational approach primarily driven by the existence and availability of various technologies and data, with little regard for how these technologies and their associated metrics can conceptually relate to athletic injury causality and mechanisms. In this article, a potential solution to these issues is proposed and a new model for investigating athletic injury aetiology and mechanisms, and for developing and evaluating injury prevention strategies, is presented. This solution is centred on the construction and utilisation of various causal diagrams, such as frameworks, models and causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), to help guide athletic injury research and prevention efforts. This approach will alleviate many of the challenges facing athletic injury research by facilitating the investigation of specific causal links, mechanisms and assumptions with appropriate scientific methods, aiding the translation of lab-based research into the applied sporting world, and guiding causal inferences from applied research efforts by establishing appropriate supporting causal structures. Further, this approach will also help guide the development and adoption of both relevant metrics (and technologies) and injury prevention strategies, as well as encourage the construction of appropriate theoretical and conceptual foundations prior to the commencement of applied injury research studies. This will help minimise the risk of resource wastage, data fishing, p-hacking and hypothesising after the results are known (HARK-ing) in athletic injury research.

A Conceptual Exploration of Hamstring Muscle-Tendon Functioning during the Late-Swing Phase of Sprinting: The Importance of Evidence-Based Hamstring Training Frameworks.

An eccentrically lengthening, energy-absorbing, brake-driven model of hamstring function during the late-swing phase of sprinting has been widely touted within the existing literature. In contrast, an isometrically contracting, spring-driven model of hamstring function has recently been proposed. This theory has gained substantial traction within the applied sporting world, influencing understandings of hamstring function while sprinting, as well as the development and adoption of certain types of hamstring-specific exercises. Across the animal kingdom, both spring- and motor-driven muscle-tendon unit (MTU) functioning are frequently observed, with both models of locomotive functioning commonly utilising some degree of active muscle lengthening to draw upon force enhancement mechanisms. However, a method to accurately assess hamstring muscle-tendon functioning when sprinting does not exist. Accordingly, the aims of this review article are three-fold: (1) to comprehensively explore current terminology, theories and models surrounding muscle-tendon functioning during locomotion, (2) to relate these models to potential hamstring function when sprinting by examining a variety of hamstring-specific research and (3) to highlight the importance of developing and utilising evidence-based frameworks to guide hamstring training in athletes required to sprint. Due to the intensity of movement, large musculotendinous stretches and high mechanical loads experienced in the hamstrings when sprinting, it is anticipated that the hamstring MTUs adopt a model of functioning that has some reliance upon active muscle lengthening and muscle actuators during this particular task. However, each individual hamstring MTU is expected to adopt various combinations of spring-, brake- and motor-driven functioning when sprinting, in accordance with their architectural arrangement and activation patterns. Muscle function is intricate and dependent upon complex interactions between musculoskeletal kinematics and kinetics, muscle activation patterns and the neuromechanical regulation of tensions and stiffness, and loads applied by the environment, among other important variables. Accordingly, hamstring function when sprinting is anticipated to be unique to this particular activity. It is therefore proposed that the adoption of hamstring-specific exercises should not be founded on unvalidated claims of replicating hamstring function when sprinting, as has been suggested in the literature. Adaptive benefits may potentially be derived from a range of hamstring-specific exercises that vary in the stimuli they provide. Therefore, a more rigorous approach is to select hamstring-specific exercises based on thoroughly constructed evidence-based frameworks surrounding the specific stimulus provided by the exercise, the accompanying adaptations elicited by the exercise, and the effects of these adaptations on hamstring functioning and injury risk mitigation when sprinting.

Understanding Training Load as Exposure and Dose.

Various terms used in sport and exercise science, and medicine, are derived from other fields such as epidemiology, pharmacology and causal inference. Conceptual and nomological frameworks have described training load as a multidimensional construct manifested by two causally related subdimensions: external and internal training load. In this article, we explain how the concepts of training load and its subdimensions can be aligned to classifications used in occupational medicine and epidemiology, where exposure can also be differentiated into external and internal dose. The meanings of terms used in epidemiology such as exposure, external dose, internal dose and dose-response are therefore explored from a causal perspective and their underlying concepts are contextualised to the physical training process. We also explain how these concepts can assist in the validation process of training load measures. Specifically, to optimise training (i.e. within a causal context), a measure of exposure should be reflective of the mediating mechanisms of the primary outcome. Additionally, understanding the difference between intermediate and surrogate outcomes allows for the correct investigation of the effects of exposure measures and their interpretation in research and applied settings. Finally, whilst the dose-response relationship can provide evidence of the validity of a measure, conceptual and computational differentiation between causal (explanatory) and non-causal (descriptive and predictive) dose-response relationships is needed. Regardless of how sophisticated or "advanced" a training load measure (and metric) appears, in a causal context, if it cannot be connected to a plausible mediator of a relevant response (outcome), it is likely of little use in practice to support and optimise the training process.

The 'training load' construct: Why it is appropriate and scientific.

A recent paper called for the abandonment of the term load (and training load) when used outside its mechanical meaning, claiming it is "unscientific" and "breaches scientific principles." In this article, we explain why its use does not breach any scientific principles and we clarify the process of labelling, conceptualising and operationalising a construct. Training load is simply a label attributed to a higher-order construct overarching other interrelated sub-dimensions. This multi-level structure provides a framework (nomological network) to support the research process and also practical applications. Load is a word, and therefore cannot be "unscientific". The "use" or "misuse" of words and terms entirely depends upon definitions that should be based on current understanding. Misuse occurs when a term is decontextualised or interpreted according to a unilateral perspective. The field of mechanics does not have a monopoly on the term load (or other common terms such as work, stress and fatigue), which are legitimately used in many scientific areas and with various meanings. The 'obligation' to rely on terms abiding by the Système International d'Unités (SI) when describing a construct is inappropriate. The SI relates to how we can measure, not describe training load; i.e., SI is relevant to its operational and not its constitutive (descriptive) definition. Discussions regarding shared and standardised descriptions and definitions are more relevant than discussions about discarding terms in sport and exercise science. Researchers (and practitioners) can continue to use the term training load as it does not breach any scientific principles.

Training Load and Injury: Causal Pathways and Future Directions.

Causal pathways between training loads and the mechanisms of tissue damage and athletic injury are poorly understood. Here, the relation between specific training load measures and metrics, and causal pathways of gradual onset and traumatic injury are examined. Currently, a wide variety of internal and external training load measures and metrics exist, with many of these being commonly utilized to evaluate injury risk. These measures and metrics can conceptually be related to athletic injury through the mechanical load-response pathway, the psycho-physiological load-response pathway, or both. However, the contributions of these pathways to injury vary. Importantly, tissue fatigue damage and trauma through the mechanical load-response pathway is poorly understood. Furthermore, considerable challenges in quantifying this pathway exist within applied settings, evidenced by a notable absence of validation between current training load measures and tissue-level mechanical loads. Within this context, the accurate quantification of mechanical loads holds considerable importance for the estimation of tissue damage and the development of more thorough understandings of injury risk. Despite internal load measures of psycho-physiological load speculatively being conceptually linked to athletic injury through training intensity and the effects of psycho-physiological fatigue, these measures are likely too far removed from injury causation to provide meaningful, reliable relationships with injury. Finally, we used a common training load metric as a case study to show how the absence of a sound conceptual rationale and spurious links to causal mechanisms can disclose the weaknesses of candidate measures as tools for altering the likelihood of injuries, aiding the future development of more refined injury risk assessment methods.

Training Load and Its Role in Injury Prevention, Part I: Back to the Future.

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.

A conceptual model and detailed framework for stress-related, strain-related, and overuse athletic injury.

A multitude of athletic injuries occur when the various tissues that make up the human body experience stresses and strains that exceed their material strength. The precise amount of stress and strain that any given tissue can withstand is determined by the mechanical properties and resultant strength of that particular tissue. These mechanical properties are directly determined by an individual's physiology and acute regulation of these properties. A number of theoretical frameworks for athletic injury occurrence have been proposed, however, a detailed conceptual framework for injury aetiology that considers the interplay between the physiological and mechanical factors and outlines the causal pathways to tissue damage and injury is needed. This will guide injury research towards a more thorough investigation of causal mechanisms and understanding of risk factors. Further, it is important to take into account the considerable differences in loading patterns which can result in varying injury outcomes such as acute stress-related, strain-related, or overuse injury. Within this article a simplified conceptual model of athletic injury is proposed along with a detailed, evidence-informed, conceptual framework for athletic injury aetiology that focuses on stress-related, strain-related, and overuse injury.

The relationship between mechanical stiffness and athletic performance markers in sub-elite footballers.

This study investigated the relationship between several measures of lower-body stiffness and physical performance variables in 22 sub-elite male football players (mean ± SD; 21.9 ± 1.5 yr; 1.79 ± 0.06 m; 72.2 ± 7.2 kg). The participants were assessed for individual muscle stiffness of the Rectus Femoris (RF), Biceps Femoris (BF) and Medial Gastrocnemius (MG) muscles and vertical stiffness (Kvert) was also assessed assessed running acceleration, maximal sprint speed, agility, vertical jumping and muscular strength. Pearson's correlations quantified the relationships and participants were also separated into relatively stiff (SG) and compliant groups (CG) for each variable. When ranked by Kvert the SG exhibited superior performance during sprinting, agility, jumping and strength (p ≤ 0.05) and when ranked by RF stiffness, SG exhibited superior sprint, agility and drop jump performance (p ≤ 0.05), while MG and BF stiffness were not related to performance. Higher stiffness appears to be beneficial to athletic performance for football players and therefore it may be beneficial for practitioners working with athletes that are required to perform dynamic activities to consider the contribution of stiffness to athletic performance.