Yes, rolling averages are a good way to assess training load for injury prevention. Is there a better way? Probably, but we have not seen the evidence

Yes, rolling averages are a good way to assess training load for injury prevention. Is there a better way? Probably, but we have not seen the evidence

The acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is evidence based and is strongly supported by the available literature. Other models of injury risk have yet to show such support. We find the argument of the three hypothetical athletes presented by Menaspa to be reductionist and unrealistic. At no stage should the ACWR be examined in isolation of overall training structure. Furthermore, the way that athletes achieve their load is as important as the ACWR itself4 highlighting the sophistry of the comparison. Menaspa suggested that non-linear models are more appropriate, yet there is no evidence for the use of non-linear models in an injury prevention setting, and no evidence that they are superior to the current model. There may be better models for identifying links between training loads and injury; however, we are yet to see compelling evidence. The ACWR is currently a well-supported, evidence-based model.

Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions.