Injury Poll - since January 1, 2012

[alexk]

Oh Miss Smiles - that's not fair . Hope you are on the mend and taking good care of yourself. I can feel 1/4 of your pain...

I experienced my 1st severe running injury - ever - in June. From, what seemed like out-of-nowhere, I developed a bad case of ITBS on my right side. But of course, everything comes from somewhere. And, in retrospect, I see that overtraining was the cause. I wasn't paying enough attention to recovery and cutback weeks - won't do that again!

I did a few ART sessions but it was rest and hip/glute strengthening that helped me the most. I ran very little for 6 weeks. Once the acute phase was over, I power-walked (squeezed those glutes), along with doing various hip/glute exercises. 6 wks after the initial pain, I was abe to run pain-free (end of July). I SLOWLY added the miles and haven't felt a niggle since recovered. But I'm still running w/ a bit of fear and caution which I think is good .

I missed the marathon season but ran a strong 10 miler recenty which gave me some much-needed confidence. I'm not close to the shape I was in pre-injury but that's ok. I'll get there when I'm ready.The experience reminded me not to take my legs and health for granted. At the end of the day, I don't need to run fast or far, I just need to run .

[Jwolf]

Shouldn't this be in the Injury forum?

If in the injury section, two potential responses of not injured or not affected by an injury, may not have the correct number of responses given the people that fit into those categories may not visit the injury section.

Weird that I didn't even realize there was an actual poll until today. Perhaps because I first answered on tapatalk.

The poll participants are still essentially self-selected, though; there are way more people answering the poll that are already injured than not. Much more than the actual percentage of injured runners on this forum.

[OLRunner]

I think your assumption that injuries result from unrealistic goals is also flawed. Ask any family doctor, physiotherapist, or chiropractor and they'll tell you about countless patients that get injured from recreational running or other activities.

Weekend hockey players, golfers, soccer players, tennis, badminton, name a sport and someone is getting injured doing it. Pro athletes get injured, too. So do farmers and construction workers. Why should runners be any different?

Being injured or sore is a fact of life, something's going to happen, no matter what.
I tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk in August. It could have happened to anybody.

[ian]

I've had three different injuries (in three separate poll categories) this year. While this poll undoubtedly has inherent selection biases and you can also injure yourself doing all sorts of other activities, the injury rate expressed here is somewhat depressing. Most of us would claim that running provides major health benefits and most of us have rolled our eyes when sedentary friends or family members have warned us about "ruining our knees", yet most of us appear to be on the injured list more often than we'd like.

[VeloCarrie]

I can't see the poll because I'm on Tapatalk.

Severe plantar fasciitis in my left foot (since April). I'm not so hung up on missing running right now since I've embraced cycling so well that it's taken over.

[Ken B]

Re-injured my right hamstring tripping over a rubber mat entering Copps Coliseum at the finish of aTB. I was off running for a short period of time and had to work on my recovery before starting training for the JFK.

[Dstew]

I've had three different injuries (in three separate poll categories) this year. While this poll undoubtedly has inherent selection biases and you can also injure yourself doing all sorts of other activities, the injury rate expressed here is somewhat depressing. Most of us would claim that running provides major health benefits and most of us have rolled our eyes when sedentary friends or family members have warned us about "ruining our knees", yet most of us appear to be on the injured list more often than we'd like.

Depressing but in line with most of the studies out there.

I found one line from a study on the prevention of running injuries to be most interesting:

as pointed out by Marti et al, it probably would be as difficult to motivate determined runners to reduce running distance as it would be to motivate sedentary people to take up running as an activity

If we are being honest with ourselves and with all of these studies, running purely for health means 8 minute miles, 2 or 3 times a week with a maximum of 20 miles in a week and when you start to go over any of those amounts, there is the law of diminishing returns and it appears, almost the certainty of a running injury. Although I did find a study that shows 7 minute miles are okay with that sort of frequency and duration.

The dilemma is that I enjoy running marathons and 20 miles a week not only would make for a painful and slow marathon, it would also increase the risk of heart damage. So do I increase to 40 miles per week and reduce the inherent risks of running 26.2 miles and supplement that with significant and regular cross training and be satisfied with whatever flows from that on race day. That is where I am leaning but if in doing so I hit a critical mass with regards to risk, then why not push it out a little further to get a faster time. But do I take that incremental risk if that does not get me to Boston and of course, these are all known unknowns and what unknowns unknowns are out there?

For me, interesting academic discussion but can alter one's running paradigm.

[Mark.AU]

No injuries at all. One slightly sore hamstring that caused me to bail on a couple of brick workouts is all, and that really just a precaution as I was close to the UK race at the time.

I wonder whether the the poll is any use at all as a comparative tool. Each of us has a different definition of "injury". What might be an "injury" to someone else might simply be a cause of irritation to me, something I would just ignore the discomfort and run through it, and of course the opposite could also be true.

[VeloCarrie]

I can't see the poll because I'm on Tapatalk.

Severe plantar fasciitis in my left foot (since April). I'm not so hung up on missing running right now since I've embraced cycling so well that it's taken over.

If this poll is being used to track injuries while running, I would have to clarify that I developed PF during my job, not running. It's a common nursing injury.

[jamix]

I put "minor injury" because of what happened at the Kingston triathlon, but this "injury" left as quickly as it came....

Everyone is different. For me, I don't get injured frequently enough or long enough to worry about it. If I got up to running more serious weekly mileage maybe it'd be different, but I'm smart enough to run within my limits.

I do get burnt out and sometimes experience a crash. This was the case after the Canada Day 10km. I wasn't injured in anyway acute way, but I felt like I did an all out marathon and my body kinda shut down as far as running was concerned.

[kab]

I tripped on some of the notoriously bad Winnipeg pavement and did a face plant onto my shoulder a little less than a year ago. I guess I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't been running but hardly what I would call a running injury. lucky I didn't break anything except some skin and blood vessels.

[canalrunner]

One hamstring pull this past spring. First injury in over 5 years and 15-20 marathons. I'll take it.

[Dstew]

No injuries at all. One slightly sore hamstring that caused me to bail on a couple of brick workouts is all, and that really just a precaution as I was close to the UK race at the time.

I wonder whether the the poll is any use at all as a comparative tool. Each of us has a different definition of "injury". What might be an "injury" to someone else might simply be a cause of irritation to me, something I would just ignore the discomfort and run through it, and of course the opposite could also be true.

Much more of a matter of curiosity at first and then it actually got me to thinking about why I have been hurt.

I ran 22 K race in 1:38 with a stress fracture and could barely walk for a number of days following the race. Now when I see the early warning signs I at least cut back on my training a little and might brace up the leg longer out of an abundance of caution.

[QuickChick]

I voted "injury that stopped me from training/racing", but I don't feel like I had any big deal injuries this year, just injuries at bad times. I had a minor ITBS thing in January, just enough to hold back my long runs, but I could go up to about 10K no problem. Then I got a little shin splint issue that made me take about 10 days off, and then run every other day fairly easy, but that was just before the chilly half, and I hadn't yet gotten my distances high enough anyway after my ITB issues. I tend to develop all these things way more in the cold weather.

[DougG]

I've had three different injuries (in three separate poll categories) this year. While this poll undoubtedly has inherent selection biases and you can also injure yourself doing all sorts of other activities, the injury rate expressed here is somewhat depressing. Most of us would claim that running provides major health benefits and most of us have rolled our eyes when sedentary friends or family members have warned us about "ruining our knees", yet most of us appear to be on the injured list more often than we'd like.

It may seem that way, but as someone who has had multiple injuries from different sports (martial arts, slow pitch), I don't think the rate is that high. Granted I haven't studied the numbers, so it's more of a guess, but if you are an active person you will get hurt eventually. Several years ago (late 1980's) while in hospital with a severely broken wrist (from slow pitch ) the doctor told me he sees more injuries from slow pitch than from other sports. The stats may have changed since then but as my family doctor used to tell me, if you stay home and do nothing you won't get hurt (but you won't be as healthy), but if you play sports, you will get hurt. It happens. It's part of the price we pay.

[Mark.AU]

I got injured way more when I was playing football than from running/tri.

[ian]

It may seem that way, but as someone who has had multiple injuries from different sports (martial arts, slow pitch), I don't think the rate is that high. Granted I haven't studied the numbers, so it's more of a guess, but if you are an active person you will get hurt eventually. Several years ago (late 1980's) while in hospital with a severely broken wrist (from slow pitch ) the doctor told me he sees more injuries from slow pitch than from other sports. The stats may have changed since then but as my family doctor used to tell me, if you stay home and do nothing you won't get hurt (but you won't be as healthy), but if you play sports, you will get hurt. It happens. It's part of the price we pay.

Indeed.

I guess the thing which doesn't sit right with me is my own (probably naive) intuition that running should somehow be easier on my body than my previous sporting experiences: contact sports, sports with sudden explosive movements, or sports played while drunk. An occasional running injury is one thing, but even if we take the results of this poll and round them down drastically, it still suggests that running might be more likely than not to injure you in any given year. If I hope to do this until I'm old, thats going to add up to a lot of different injuries.

The only loophole I can come up with is to run without racing. Specifically, it seems that quite a few of the running injuries we get are arising from our attempts to go arbitrarily faster and further, from pushing through discomfort in training and on race day with the hope that the achievement will justify the sacrifice.

[Avis]

First, shin splints that weren't too bad and required only physio and icing with stretching. Second, a more serious tendonitis (in the other leg) of the tendon that runs up the inside of my foot. The official title escapes me for the moment. The second injury stopped me running at all for a month and has caused me to rebuild my distances and speed very conservatively. Both injuries were rooted in trying to build speed and distance too fast (for me), in anticipation of my first 10k race. And the second was further worsened by pig-headedly trying to "run through" the pain. Lesson learned.

ETA: Part of the problem may have been due to running in seriously wrong shoes. That problem has been corrected, but only time will tell if my new shoes will help prevent injury.

[turd ferguson]

I've got two injuries that I'm keeping secret because if I told you about them, you'd think I was stupid for doing a marathon. Well, one of them anyway. The other one is just gross.

[Jwolf]

The only loophole I can come up with is to run without racing. Specifically, it seems that quite a few of the running injuries we get are arising from our attempts to go arbitrarily faster and further, from pushing through discomfort in training and on race day with the hope that the achievement will justify the sacrifice.

This. Although I will still enter races, the idea of chasing arbitrary speed goals might be behind me now. My recent injuries have been directly or indirectly related to trying to push harder workouts with the goal to get faster. I don't think I need that anymore.

[getfit]

The only loophole I can come up with is to run without racing. Specifically, it seems that quite a few of the running injuries we get are arising from our attempts to go arbitrarily faster and further, from pushing through discomfort in training and on race day with the hope that the achievement will justify the sacrifice.

This. Although I will still enter races, the idea of chasing arbitrary speed goals might be behind me now. My recent injuries have been directly or indirectly related to trying to push harder workouts with the goal to get faster. I don't think I need that anymore.

I agree with this completely. Most of my injuries have been sustained trying to go further, faster or both. If I just stick to 10km and under and my 'happy' pace I seem to be fine. Then again, my current injury is a result of overdoing it in bootcamp, trying to reach my illusive goal of firmer thighs

[Jogger Barbie]

I guess the thing which doesn't sit right with me is my own (probably naive) intuition that running should somehow be easier on my body than my previous sporting experiences: contact sports, sports with sudden explosive movements, or sports played while drunk. An occasional running injury is one thing, but even if we take the results of this poll and round them down drastically, it still suggests that running might be more likely than not to injure you in any given year. If I hope to do this until I'm old, that's going to add up to a lot of different injuries.

The only loophole I can come up with is to run without racing. Specifically, it seems that quite a few of the running injuries we get are arising from our attempts to go arbitrarily faster and further, from pushing through discomfort in training and on race day with the hope that the achievement will justify the sacrifice.

Interesting thread for sure.

However, I don't know if it's all that useful for making inferences about the frequency of injuries, in part because (as someone else said earlier) we could all be using a different meaning for "injury". I personally don't call something an injury unless it forces me to stop or seriously scale back running for several weeks. Other people might have a looser definition.

IMHO, any kind of repetitive motion is going to put some stress and strain on your body, and as the mileage volume goes up, there is going to be more. Therefore I think (hope?) that as each of us becomes a more experienced runner, and more in tune with his/her own body, we can each take steps to minimize injuries. E.g.: over the years, I have learned that my right hip is my "go to" spot. When I fail to stretch it out regularly, it starts to hurt during my long runs. If I keep ignoring it and not stretching, it starts to hurt more. But if I am smart and remember that I'm not getting any younger and I need to look after myself, and I stretch regularly, I go many weeks with only occasional discomfort. And occasional discomfort is just a normal by-product of doing something for a prolonged period.

I do agree that the "running" vs "racing" probably plays a factor. And again, each person needs to find the "sweet spot" being doing enough and doing too much. Maybe racing slower is the trade-off for remaining injury-free for most of us, and we ignore that at our peril.

Back to frequency. I've been running regularly for about 18 years. In that time span, I've had three or four interruptions due to what I would define as an injury. I'll trade that against all the other benefits running has brought me over that time frame.

[Dstew]

It may seem that way, but as someone who has had multiple injuries from different sports (martial arts, slow pitch), I don't think the rate is that high. Granted I haven't studied the numbers, so it's more of a guess, but if you are an active person you will get hurt eventually. Several years ago (late 1980's) while in hospital with a severely broken wrist (from slow pitch ) the doctor told me he sees more injuries from slow pitch than from other sports. The stats may have changed since then but as my family doctor used to tell me, if you stay home and do nothing you won't get hurt (but you won't be as healthy), but if you play sports, you will get hurt. It happens. It's part of the price we pay.

Indeed.

I guess the thing which doesn't sit right with me is my own (probably naive) intuition that running should somehow be easier on my body than my previous sporting experiences: contact sports, sports with sudden explosive movements, or sports played while drunk. An occasional running injury is one thing, but even if we take the results of this poll and round them down drastically, it still suggests that running might be more likely than not to injure you in any given year. If I hope to do this until I'm old, thats going to add up to a lot of different injuries.

The only loophole I can come up with is to run without racing. Specifically, it seems that quite a few of the running injuries we get are arising from our attempts to go arbitrarily faster and further, from pushing through discomfort in training and on race day with the hope that the achievement will justify the sacrifice.

As an aside, I had the same experience with Doug and softball. Sun was in my eyes, playing center field and tracked down a ball I should have not tracked down. Lowered my glove to block the sun and the ball hit full force into my glasses and that into my flesh. My teammates tell me the sound was horrific and it literally knocked me out. I am bleeding quite heavily and drive myself and my wife to the hospital with a once white jersey now covered in blood made worse by the sweat. As we walked down to the stitching room, the halls are filled with soft ball players, some with two knee braces and a player from the other team that had several of her teeth knocked out in warm up when her husband threw too high and hard. The ER doctor said that he knows when it is soft ball season as there are more and worse injuries than football or hockey because you have a collection of middle aged or so people who once were athletic and usually without doing much to prepare think that their body can do what it once did and bodies do not respond the same way. My friend had a theory about that; you land on your back from five feet up when you are 14, shake it off and go on as if nothing happens. He have a small fall when you are 40 and the back and body take it out on you then.

It was interesting how the running community reacted with outrage when the study that suggested the healthiest approach to running is 20 miles per week at 8 minute miles and yet it is probably not far from the truth. That does allow one to properly train for most races and so in training for a race, I think we transform running into a contact sport. The issue is somewhat clouded by the outliers such as Ed Whitelock and other examples of people running very well as they age. And as I recall, there was one study that suggested for an unlucky few, that running 40 miles per week had the same affect on them as running a marathon.

So maybe the better question is how many people have been hurt running and how many have been injured when training for a race. I do have to thank everyone for participating as it has really assisted me in analyzing my goals once again. With the high of the Victoria marathon, I was ready to walk on broken glass and then hot coals to do what I needed to get back to Boston. If completing a marathon felt that good, just how much better would it feel to qualify for Boston? But as I have started regular use of "Cross training", I can really notice weaknesses and imbalances in my muscles. In the past through good luck and duct tape I have managed to keep it together through race day but as I am attempting to take a long horizon view, I am looking at ways to run 40 miles per week or so and still cross train to address the weaknesses and imbalances my body seems to develop when I just run. I really need to have the discipline to "train forward" and take whatever time my training will give me.

[ian]

That does allow one to properly train for most races and so in training for a race, I think we transform running into a contact sport. The issue is somewhat clouded by the outliers such as Ed Whitelock and other examples of people running very well as they age.

Ed is an outlier for speed but not injury, as his knees have given him all sorts of problems in recent years. There's a 70-something Canadian who has won his age group in Boston a couple of times recently and lamented to me this spring that he was on the shelf for a while with a %&$#-ed up ankle from overtraining (his words). These two supermen back the contention that the more you run, the more chances you give yourself to get injured, especially at high performance levels.

Of interest, I was recently talking to a a fellow runner who is also a biologist and he pointed out how the body's endocrine system (i.e., hormones and such) is so ramped up by heavy training that certain aspects of aging are almost suspended... until you get injured, at which point an extended layoff seems to let the system catch up to your real age, thereby making it much more difficult to get back to the same sort of training schedule that you had prior to the injury. It's an interesting hypothesis and it is helping me rationalize my current limitation of only running 3-5 times per week.

[Dstew]

Of interest, I was recently talking to a a fellow runner who is also a biologist and he pointed out how the body's endocrine system (i.e., hormones and such) is so ramped up by heavy training that certain aspects of aging are almost suspended... until you get injured, at which point an extended layoff seems to let the system catch up to your real age, thereby making it much more difficult to get back to the same sort of training schedule that you had prior to the injury. It's an interesting hypothesis and it is helping me rationalize my current limitation of only running 3-5 times per week.

That makes a lot of sense to me and unfortunately, it does also seem to apply to me. I wonder if one's central governor also kicks in?

It is hard to put into words but before my string of injuries, I could do a long hard training run or a marathon at 8 - 9 out of 10 with 10 redlining. Now, it seems that even though I physically can run faster, no matter what I tell my legs to do, I tend to fall back to 6 - 7. And if I push, I start to go to a 9 - 11 and cannot seem to find that sweet spot. It is almost if my mind and body are working together to say, you want to push hard, we will push so hard you have no choice but to slow down because we are not going to let you injury us again.

If someone as fast and talented as you can use this to rationalize 3-5 days a week, I am happy to jump on that bandwagon.