Effectiveness of an online multi-component exercise-based injury prevention program on running-related injury risk in recreational runners: a randomized controlled trial.

Injury prevention programs for runners have had mixed results in the past, which may be because they don't fully address the risk factors that runners can actually change through training. This randomized controlled trial tested whether an online, multi-component exercise program could reduce running-related injuries over nine months. Recreational runners were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (n=135), who did 11 exercises targeting core strength, flexibility, and neuromuscular control 2-4 times weekly, or a control group (n=129), who kept their usual running routine.

Injuries were tracked through self-report every two weeks. Overall, 30.3% of participants reported at least one new injury. The intervention group had significantly lower rates of overall injuries (4.62 vs. 8.71 per 1000 running hours) and overuse injuries specifically (4.04 vs.

7.61), but no significant difference emerged for acute injuries. Because injuries were self-reported, some misclassification or recall inaccuracy is possible, which is worth keeping in mind when interpreting these results.

If you're a recreational runner, you've probably wondered whether specific exercises could lower your injury risk. This study tested that question directly: 264 runners were randomly split into two groups, one doing an 11-exercise online program (core strength, flexibility, and balance-type training) 2-4 times a week for 15-30 minutes, and the other continuing their normal running routine, over nine months. About 30% of all participants reported at least one new injury during the study.

But the runners doing the exercise program had notably fewer injuries overall, and fewer overuse injuries specifically, compared with those who just kept running as usual. There was no significant difference for sudden, acute injuries like a sprained ankle from a trip or fall. One thing to keep in mind is that injuries were self-reported by participants every two weeks rather than confirmed by a clinician, so there's some room for inaccuracy in how injuries were counted.

Still, the difference between groups was clear enough to be considered statistically meaningful in this trial.

This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.

This RCT randomized 264 recreational runners (mean age 35.9 years) to either an 11-exercise online program targeting core strength, flexibility, and neuromuscular control (n=135) or a usual-routine control (n=129), with injuries self-reported biweekly over nine months. The intervention group showed significantly lower incidence rates for overall running-related injuries (4.62 vs.

8.71 per 1000 running hours; IRR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77, p=0.004) and overuse injuries (4.04 vs. 7.61, p=0.001), corresponding to reported risk reductions of 47% and 54% respectively.

No significant between-group difference was found for acute injuries. The distinction between overuse and acute injury outcomes is notable, suggesting the program's mechanism, addressing modifiable intrinsic factors like core stability and neuromuscular control, may be more relevant to gradual-onset injuries than sudden trauma. Reliance on self-report for injury ascertainment is a key limitation affecting outcome verification and potential misclassification.

The abstract does not report on adherence, blinding procedures, or adverse events, so these aspects of feasibility and safety cannot be assessed from the information given.