A recent journal article on running injuries starts with this gem as its first decision: “Runners are subject to a high incidence of lower boundary injury of between approximately 20% to 80%. ” This pseudo-stat, which originated in a 2007 methodical critique by Dutch investigates, is a kind of running joke among investigates in the field–an opening position that is cognizant of the fact that we basically don’t know anything about who gets disabled and why.

It’s particularly appropriate in this case, because the new study ceases up highlighting the magnitudes of our innocence. Investigates at Dublin City University, led by physiotherapist Sarah Dillon, explored whether it’s possible to predict which smugglers are most likely to get injured based on research of simple characteristics like strength, opennes, foot place, and asymmetry. The causes, which appear in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, don’t say much for our ability to predict the future, but have some important implications for how we think about hurt risk.

The study involved 223 recreational athletes, divided into three radicals. One group consisted of 116 people who had suffered a running-related lower-body injury between three and 12 months prior. The second group was 61 people who had been injured more than two years prior but were subsequently healthful. And the third was 46 unicorns who had never suffered a running injury, defined as pain that justification them to restrict or stop training for at least seven days or three consecutive hearings, or consult a doctor or other healthcare systems professional.

Runners who had been injured less than three months ago were excluded, to ensure that everyone was healthy. So were those injured between one and 2 years ago, to ensure a clear distinction between recently injured athletes and those who seemed to have reacquired injury resistance. That’s important, because numerous studies( includes the 2007 critique) have concluded that one of the very best predictors of future hurt is previous trauma. If you’ve been hurt and then stayed healthy for two or more times, you’re beating the odds.

All these runners came into the lab for a series of tests. Strength was assessed for numerous hip, knee, and ankle changes. Hip and ankle flexible was measured, as were hoofed posture indicator and navicular descend, which both assess how much your foot pronates( flattens inward) or supinates( rotations outward ). For each of these measures, an asymmetry index was calculated based on the differences between right and left side.

The results are pretty easy to sum up. The recently injured, injury-free for two years, and never-injured smugglers had, on average, virtually the same characteristics. In fact, the child changes that did develop were the opposite of what you’d expect: the never-injured smugglers had weaker calves than both injured radicals, and weaker hip abductors than the recently injured athletes. That’s bad news for the hope of injury-proofing yourself by doing a few simple exams, determining key weaknesses, and defining them with targeted exercises.

The two possible causes hovered by the researchers is that recently disabled runners had equal or greater strength because they’d been diligently doing rehab employs. Certainly, 87 percent of the recently disabled athletes reported doing a rehab protocol–though in my anecdotal knowledge that generally involves being given a sheet of paper with some usages on it, half-assing them for a few weeks, and then getting and forgetting about it. Another possible is that disabled runners developed compensatory movement patterns that strengthened uninjured muscles while covering for the injured ones.

More likely, in my view, is that a broad-spectrum approaching that lumps all running injuries together is doomed to failure. Maybe people who develop runner’s knee have, say, somewhat weaker hips, and people who develop shin splints have slightly weaker ankle dorsiflexors, and people who develop plantar fasciitis have slightly tighter calves, and so on. Throw them all together in one group, and none of those warning signs are likely to be statistically significant overall.

If you’re searching for root causes and pondering the eternal philosophical question of why bad injuries happen to good parties, then these caveats significance. Despite the brand-new study’s non-result, it’s still possible that there is an anatomical intellect for your injury, rather than precisely a bad roll of the dice. The current research merely aren’t feelings enough to pick it up. But in practice, if you’re actually trying to predict and frustrate harms, that’s a problem.

At a conference a number of years ago, I looked a very interesting talk by Norwegian boasts injury researcher Roald Bahr about the use of screening assessments of backbone and flexible and so on to predict gashes. His key point: “Statistical association is very, very different from having predictive ability.” For speciman, he coauthored a prospective study that discover soccer players with weaker hamstrings were more likely to get hamstring injuries. But that statistical association didn’t translate into useful projections: whatever threshold they chose to define a “weak” hamstring left far too many false positives( actors with shaky hamstrings who didn’t get injured) and false negatives( musicians with strong hamstrings “whos been” get injured ).

Bahr’s conclusion was that you shouldn’t prescribe workouts to healthful athletes on the basis of screening measures. If you have an intervention that has been shown to reduce injury risk–like the Nordic hamstring curl in football players–then you should assign everyone to do it, rather than trying to guess who has a marginally higher or lower likelihood of injury. That realise ability, although you’d have a hard time getting any group of lope experts to agree which usages, if any, fulfill that threshold for runners.

If all this seems a bit depressing, it’s worth remembering that running injuries, unlike hamstrings damages, don’t generally happen instantly. They build up gradually, a consequence of too much, too soon, for too long. Transient aches and agonies are probably a much better indicator than any screening test of what weaknesses and imbalances you need to address. And if you do get injured, don’t be too hard-bitten on yourself: despite what your therapist may tell you with the benefit of hindsight , nothing genuinely appreciated it coming.

For more Sweat Science, join me on Twitter and Facebook, sign up for the email newsletter, and check out my diary Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance.

Read more: outsideonline.com