Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Monten. J. Sports Sci. Med. 6 (2017) 2: 67–74 | UDC 796.412.5:613.64 67
Common Running Overuse Injuries and
Prevention
Žiga Kozinc1 and Nejc Šarabon1
Affiliations: 1University of Primorska, Faculty of Health Sciences, Izola, Slovenia
Correspondence: Nejc Šarabon, University of Primorska, Faculty of Health Sciences, Polje 42, 6310 Izola, Slovenia.
E-mail: nejc.sarabon@fvz.upr.si
ABSTRACT Runners are particularly prone to developing overuse injuries. e most common running-
related injuries include medial tibial stress syndrome, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, patellar
tendinopathy, iliotibial band syndrome, tibial stress fractures, and patellofemoral pain syndrome. Two of the
most signi cant risk factors appear to be injury history and weekly distance. Several trials have successfully
identi ed biomechanical risk factors for speci c injuries, with increased ground reaction forces, excessive
foot pronation, hip internal rotation and hip adduction during stance phase being mentioned most o en.
However, evidence on interventions for lowering injury risk is limited, especially regarding exercise-based
interventions. Biofeedback training for lowering ground reaction forces is one of the few methods proven
to be e ective. It seems that the best way to approach running injury prevention is through individualized
treatment. Each athlete should be assessed separately and scanned for risk factors, which should be then
addressed with speci c exercises. is review provides an overview of most common running-related
injuries, with a particular focus on risk factors, and emphasizes the problems encountered in preventing
running-related injuries.
KEY WORDS Runners, Exercise, Pain, Risk factors, Injury mechanism, Preventive methods.
Introduction
Running is among most popular physical activities, which may be attributed to its accessibility, inexpensiveness
and numerous positive e ects. It has been shown, for example, to lower diabetes, hypertension and
hypercholesterolemia risk (Williams & ompson, 2013).
Although being a non-contact, submaximal, and continuous activity, running nonetheless elicits a considerable
amount of injuries. Runners are particularly prone to sustaining overuse injuries, which occur due to frequent
submaximal strain and/or inadequate recovery of the tissues involved (DiFiori et al., 2014). Several risk factors
for developing running-related injuries have been investigated, and can be roughly divided into intrinsic
(e.g. individual’s abilities, anthropometric characteristics, and cognitive properties) and extrinsic (e.g. ground
surface, footwear and training load) (Johnston, Taunton, Lloyd-Smith, & McKenzie, 2003).
Various strategies for running injury prevention are applied by coaches and runners themselves (e.g.
stretching, warm-up, technique training). In this review, we will discuss the most common running injuries,
underlying mechanisms, risk factors, and preventative strategies.
Biomechanics of Running
In this chapter, we will brie y review some biomechanical properties of running, focusing on aspects and
parameters relevant to injury development and prevention.
Running cycle and joint kinematics
e running cycle consists of two fundamental phases: the stance phase and the swing phase. In kinematic
Accepted a er revision: May 13 2017 | First published online: September 01 2017
© 2017 by the author(s). License MSA, Podgorica, Montenegro. is article is an open access article distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY).
Con ict of interest: None declared.
REVIEW ARTICLE
@MJSSMontenegro
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION
http://mjssm.me/?sekcija=article&artid=144
68 UDC 796.412.5:613.64
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
analysis, the rst contact with the ground (foot-strike) marks the beginning of the cycle for the leg (Anderson,
1996). From this point on, the muscles contract eccentrically to absorb landing forces. e moment of transition
into concentric contraction and force generation is called “mid-stance” (also mid-support). Concluding the
stance phase is the point of take-o , the last instant of foot touching the surface. Joint positions, velocity, and
other kinematic variables are usually measured at these three crucial moments (Novacheck, 1998).
Most of the joint motion during the running cycle occurs in the sagittal plane. e pelvic range of motion is
minimal (approximately 10°), which provides stability and e ciency (Novacheck, 1998). Hip range of motion
rarely exceeds 40° (Pink, Perry, Houglum, & Devine, 1994). Peak extension (around 10°) occurs at the take-o .
Typical peak hip exion is around 30° (Nicola & Jewison, 2012). e knee is exed to 20-25° at the foot strike,
reaches 45° exion in mid-stance and then extends to approximately 25° of exion at take-o (Novacheck,
1998). In the case of striking heel- rst (which most long-distance runners do), there is up to 10° ankle
dorsi exion at foot strike, and some plantar exion must happen initially. A erwards, the ankle moves into 20°
of dorsi exion during amortization and then into 20° plantar exion during propulsion (Dugan & Bhat, 2005).
Abnormal kinematic parameters in the frontal plane (especially excessive ranges of motion) are most o en
linked to injury development. In the amortization phase, the pelvis drops to the side of the swing leg (generally
not over 10°) and then returns to a neutral position throughout the propulsion phase (Nicola & Jewison,
2012). To compensate for this, the trunk is exed laterally, to the side of the stance leg. Hip abduction and
adduction both reach up to 10°. Peak adduction is achieved at the mid-stance, while peak abduction is the
highest at the middle of the swing phase (Novacheck, 1998). e ankle is inversed (6 to 8°) at foot-strike, then
it moves to 8° of eversion through the amortization phase (Nicola & El Shami, 2012). e eversion range of
motion during stance phase is the main determinant of the foot pronation. Anything over 9° of eversion is
considered moderate pronation, while 13° or more is labelled high pronation (Morley et al., 2010).
Horizontal movements are, like those in the frontal plane, smaller than sagittal movements (Novacheck, 1998).
Internal hip rotation and consequential knee valgus are most o en discussed in terms of injury development
(Powers, 2003). Horizontal knee and ankle motion are minimal in normal running kinematics (Nicola &
Jewison, 2012).
Muscle Work
e muscle activation pattern changes with running velocity and ground slope, yet the main force generators
remain the same. Hip extensors are active in the second part of the swing phase and throughout the stance
phase. Knee extensors, ankle plantar exors, and hip abductors are active throughout the stance phase. Hip
exors propagate the leg forwards a er the take-o . e glutes and the hamstrings pull the body forwards,
while quadriceps and ankle plantar exors generate more of an upward force. As noted before, there is
an eccentric contraction occurring in the amortization phase. Muscles and tendons lengthen, absorbing
the forces of the landing. Due to elastic properties, tendons return up to 95% of the energy stored in the
amortization phase (Novacheck, 1998). Quadriceps seem to be the largest power contributor in amortization,
while the most work in propulsion phase is generated by plantar exors (Hamner, Seth, & Delp, 2010).
Foot-strike problems
Ground reaction forces are a major concern in running. Several trials have been conducted to investigate
di erent interventions for minimizing these forces. Striking heel- rst is particularly problematic, as the rst
part of the impact cannot be absorbed by the dorsi exors and is, therefore, transmitted to passive tissues
and muscles higher in the kinetic chain (Verdini, Marcucci, Benedetti, & Leo, 2006). Looking at force curve
(Figure 1), there are two peaks in the case of heel strike. e height of the rst peak should be as low as
FIGURE 1 Comparison of ground
reaction forces between heel strike
and forefoot strike technique
UDC 796.412.5:613.64 69
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
possible or even absent (which it is, in good running technique). Additionally, the average and the maximum
slope of the curve (rate of vertical loading) before the rst peak should also be noted. e reduction of all
these three parameters is the primary goal when discussing lowering ground reaction forces (Zadpoor &
Nikooyan, 2011). Striking heel- rst not only increases the mechanical stress; it also causes the loss of energy.
In the case of the proper technique, plantar exors start to contract eccentrically immediately a er the rst
touching the ground, and the energy absorbed is returned later in full amount. e heel strike impedes this,
since some degree of plantar exion must happen rst so that the front of the foot also reaches the ground,
and some energy is lost (Novacheck, 1998).
Most common running injuries
Sport-related injuries are classi ed as acute (also traumatic) or chronic (also overuse). Acute injuries occur due
to sudden trauma (e.g. leg bone fracture caused by opponents’ foul in soccer or sudden hamstring tear during
sprinting). Chronic injuries develop gradually as a result of accumulating microtrauma, which is caused by
repeated submaximal strain (Roos & Marshall, 2014). Depending on the appearance of pain, chronic injuries
are further classi ed into four stages (McCarty, Walsh, Hald, Peter, & Mellion, 2010):
- Stage 1: Pain, present only a er activity;
- Stage 2: Pain, present during activity, not impairing performance;
- Stage 3: Pain, present during activity, impairing performance;
- Stage 4: Ceaseless pain, not receding even with rest
A recent meta-analysis showed an incidence of 2.5 injuries per 1000 hours of exposure in long-distance track
and eld athletes. However, novice runners are at much higher risk, with an incidence of 33 injuries per
1000 hours of exposure (Videbaek, Bueno, Nielsen, & Rasmussen, 2015). Another review investigated the
incidence of individual injuries. e highest incidence was reported for medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS;
13.6-20.0%), Achilles tendinopathy (9.1-10.9%), patellar tendinopathy (5.5-22.7%), plantar fasciitis (4.5-
10.0%), ankle sprain (10.9-15.0%), iliotibial band syndrome (1.8-9.1%), hamstring injury (10.9%) and tibial
stress fracture (9.1%) (Lopes, Junior, Yeung, & Costa, 2012). In ultra-distance runners, Achilles tendinopathy
and patellofemoral syndrome (PFS) are most common. e relatively low reported incidence of the latter
(5.5%) was based on only one study in this review.
Medial tibial stress syndrome
Also commonly referred to as shin splints, MTSS is especially prevalent in military personnel (Sharma,
Weston, Batterham, & Spears, 2014), yet also frequent in runners. It is loosely de ned as a pain on the inner
side of the tibia. e pain is di use and not localized, as in tibial stress fractures. e onset of MTSS usually
happens in the early stages of the season, or anytime the volume and intensity of training increases suddenly
(Putukian, McCarty, & Sebastianelli, 2010). e pain is worsened by exercise.
e exact mechanism for developing MTSS is still to be determined. Most textbooks state that the pain
originates from the periosteum along the medial tibia. Several trials have been conducted in order to link
a speci c muscle to MTSS. e con icting evidence gathered has led to mixed opinions among experts
(Franklyn & Oakes, 2015). However, we know more about risk factors. Increased hip external rotation during
the stance phase (in males only), higher body mass index, prior use of orthotics, navicular drop (indicator
of resting foot pronation) and fewer years of training experience were all linked to higher risk for sustaining
MTSS (Newman, Witchalls, Waddington, & Adams, 2013). Interestingly, females are at higher risk than males
are. Newman and colleagues (2013) pointed out that this may indicate a bone-related mechanism behind
MTSS development, since women have been shown to have lower bone mineral density.
Treatment of MTSS is dependent on the severity of the injury. Rest alone can cure most cases. Athletes are
recommended to participate in cross-training activities that do not overload the area (e.g. swimming) in
order to maintain their tness until the injury ceases. ey should then return to running and running-
involving activities gradually. Some may bene t from stretching, if there are de cits in the range of motion.
Implementation of proprioceptive training and ankle strengthening exercises is also encouraged (Galbraith
& Lavallee, 2009).
Tendon injuries
Terminology on tendon injuries is inconsistent and o en confusing. Tendinopathy is an umbrella term,
describing painful conditions in tendons and surrounding areas due to overuse (Rees, Ma ulli, & Cook, 2009).
Other terms should be used a er histopathological con rmation. Tendinitis is an injury with accompanying
in ammation of the tendon (Andres & Murrell, 2008). Tendinosis is de ned as a degenerative injury of the
tendon with no or few in ammation cells present. Along with changes in the collagen matrix, there is an
increased vessel and nerve ingrowth (Ackermann & Renstrom, 2012). Other conditions a ecting the tendon
include tenosynovitis (in ammation of tendon’s synovia (a tendon’s sheath)) and peritendinitis (in ammation
of muscle-tendon junction and paratendon (the tissue lling the interstices of the fascial compartment in
which a tendon is situated)) (Kurppa, Waris, & Rokkanen, 1979). Age and gender, among others, seem to be
important risk factors for sustaining a tendinopathy, with males and the elderly being at higher risk (Rees et
al., 2009).
70 UDC 796.412.5:613.64
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
Achilles tendinopathy is most prevalent among runners. It is further classi ed into two major categories based
on location: insertional and non-insertional. Patellar tendinopathy is sometimes called jumper’s knee, since it is
common in sports involving frequent jumping (e.g. volleyball, basketball). However, it is also common in runners.
Several biomechanical risk factors have been linked to development of both aforementioned conditions. ese
include unequal leg length, poor plantar exor exibility, strength imbalances, sudden changes in training
load, inappropriate footwear, poor running technique and excessive foot pronation during stance phase, with
the latter perhaps being the most signi cant in Achilles tendinopathy. In patellar tendinopathy, the volume
of training (particularly the volume of jumping tasks) seems to play a much bigger role (Rutland et al., 2010).
Plantar fasciitis
Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of pain in the foot. In the general population, it is most
frequent at ages 40-60, whereas runners are at the greatest risk at younger ages. Pain is usually limited to
the posterior part of the foot, under the heel. It is exacerbated while taking the rst few steps a er longer
inactivity (Waclawski, Beach, Milne, Yacyshyn, & Dryden, 2015). e origin of the pain is the plantar fascia, a
connective tissue spanning from the inferior surface of the calcaneus towards the bones in the front of the foot.
It was thought that plantar fasciitis is caused by the in ammation of the fascia. Today, the majority of experts
believe that degenerative changes are responsible for the onset of injury. A study by Lemont, Ammirati, and
Usen (2003) showed an absence of in ammation in samples collected during plantar fasciitis surgery. As with
tendinopathies, the dilemma of in ammation versus degenerative changes is not entirely closed, but does lean
to the degeneration theory side.
Knowledge of the predictors for sustaining plantar fasciitis is limited. A recent meta-analysis found only an
increased body mass index to postulate a higher risk. Other frequently listed risk factors include excessive
foot pronation during the stance phase, high foot arch and tight Achilles tendon (Go & Crawford, 2011).
Many interventions for treating plantar fasciitis have been advocated, but few have been proven e ective.
Stretching of the Achilles tendon and plantar fascia is generally a good idea, along with strengthening calf
muscles. Other non-surgical treatment options are corticosteroid injections, plantar iontophoresis, and
extracorporeal shock wave therapy (Molloy, 2012).
Iliotibial band syndrome
Iliotibial band (ITB) syndrome is an injury o en associated with running, though it is also common in
cycling, weight li ing, skiing, and soccer (Lucas, 1992). ITB is a connective tissue on the lateral aspect of the
leg, extending from the pelvis to the knee, entering the lateral tibial condyle. It encompasses the m. tensor
fascia latae and is connected to the muscles of the gluteal region and to the lumbar fascia. e pain in ITB
syndrome is present around the lateral side of the distal femur, between the lateral femoral condyle and ITB.
ITB syndrome was strongly believed to be caused by repeated rubbing of the band over the lateral femoral
epicondyle during exion-extension cycle, which would cause in ammation of the local bursa or the band
itself. In the past decade, several authors have expressed disagreement with this theory. Fairclough et al.
(2007), for example, pointed out that ITB movement across the epicondyle is probably an illusion and that
only a tension shi from anterior to posterior part of the distal ITB occurs. However, they stated that some
medial-lateral movement is present. When the tract moves medially, it compresses the intermediary tissues,
which are highly innervated; therefore, they are a good candidate for a pain source.
Kinematic risk factors, associated with ITB syndrome include excessive hip adduction, excessive peak knee
internal rotation, and excessive peak trunk ipsilateral exion during stance phase (Aderem & Louw, 2015).
Fredericson et al. (2000) found that long distance runners with ITB syndrome had lower hip abduction
strength of the a ected leg compared to the una ected leg and compared to una ected runners. In contrast,
Grau, Krauss, Maiwald, Best, and Horstmann (2008) found no di erence in either abduction or adduction
strength comparing runners with ITB syndrome with controls. A trial by Willy and Davis (2011) may support
this. eir hip-strengthening intervention signi cantly increased hip abduction and external rotation
strength but did not correct the excessive hip adduction during the stance (all the participants in the study
were exhibiting increased hip adduction prior to intervention).
Other more or less proven risk factors are tightness of the ITB, increased knee exion range of motion during
stance phase and the dominance of the quadriceps over the hamstrings (Lavine, 2010).
Patellofemoral syndrome
As with many other conditions, there is a lack of universal de nition for PFS. It can be described as a painful
condition that involves patella and patellar retinaculum, with no apparent speci c cause (Holmes & Clancy,
1998). It is o en mistaken for patellar chondromalacia, a condition with similar symptoms, but di erentiated
from PFS by patellar cartilage damage and so ening (Salehi, Khazaeli, Hatami, & Malekpour, 2010). e term
“runner’s knee” is o en used when referring to PFS, but we do not recommend using it, since it has been
attributed to other conditions. PFS is characterized by pain around patella and sometimes by crepitation in
the knee. e pain is exacerbated with squatting, running, cycling and sitting with exed knees for prolonged
period (Heintjes et al., 2004).
UDC 796.412.5:613.64 71
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
e primary culprit for PFS development is probably patellar maltracking. In the majority of cases, the patella
is translated laterally during knee exion. e causes of maltracking are a matter of debate. Pal et al. (2011)
found that delayed activation of vastus medialis is one of the possibilities. Maltracking can also be a result of
structural abnormalities, such as the increased Q-angle (the angle between femur and tibia). However, of all
known risk factors, dynamic knee valgus should perhaps be the primary concern, as it could be eliminated
or minimized with proper interventions (Ford et al., 2015). Increased foot pronation during the stance phase
and weakness of the hip abductors can both elicit a knee valgus, and both were found to be a predictor for PFS.
Moreover, women exhibit knee valgus more o en and have a signi cantly higher risk for PFS (Petersen et al.,
2014). is is another reason to consider dynamic valgus when attempting to treat or prevent PFS.
PFS is mostly treated conservatively. Sometimes, it recedes with su cient rest and progressive return to
activity. Recommendations for exercise selection are mixed. In their systematic review, Bolgla and Boling
(2011) concluded that quadriceps strengthening is the only proven method for eliminating PFS. Hip
strengthening protocols also appear promising.
Stress fractures
Repeated submaximal loading on the bones can result in stress fractures. Microscopic injuries develop and
accumulate over time, leading to macro-structural breakdown. Stress fractures are most frequent in lower
limbs and spine. e pain associated with a stress fracture is usually localized and subsides with rest. Progress
through successive workouts is common. Runners and military recruits are at highest risk (Welck, Hayes,
Pastides, Khan, & Rudge, 2015). Additionally, females are a ected much more o en than males are (with
estimated incidences of 9.8% and 6.5%, respectively) (Wentz, Liu, Haymes, & Ilich, 2011). is may be
attributed to gender-related risk factors, such as the female athlete triad (a syndrome of three interrelated
conditions: amenorrhea, eating disorders, and low bone mineral density) (Nattiv et al., 2007).
Tibial stress fractures are most prevalent in runners (Lopes et al., 2012). As said before, if the pain is spread
over a larger surface of the tibia, it is more likely to be caused by MTSS. Heel-strike technique and increased
ground reaction forces are most o en linked to increased incidence for sustaining tibial stress fractures.
Milner, Ferber, Pollard, Hamill, and Davis (2006) found female runners with tibial stress fracture history to
exhibit increased ground reaction force-related parameters (instantaneous and average vertical loading rates,
and tibial shock, i.e. a measure of peak positive acceleration of the tibia). e same conclusions were reached
in a research design for runners in general (Davis, Milner, & Hamill, 2004).
Prevention of Running Injuries
We have seen that many injuries share common risk factors, with ground reaction forces, excessive foot
pronation, and excessive hip adduction during stance phase being mentioned the most o en. Some problemat ic
kinematic abnormalities are shown in Figure 2. One might suspect that designing prevention program should
be fairly straightforward, or that there are many interventions proven to lower running injury risks.
FIGURE 2 Kinematic parameters,
associated with increased injury risk
Legend:
1 – Pelvic drop
2 – Hip adduction
3 – Knee valgus
4 – Foot pronation
72 UDC 796.412.5:613.64
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
Possibly the most comprehensive review of the literature, regarding running injury prevention, is the one
done by Yeung, Yeung, and Gillespie (2011). ey focused only on so -tissue injuries but included a wide
range of interventions in their systematic search and further analysis. Twenty- ve trials were identi ed, with
the participants being military recruits (19 trials), runners (3 trials), prisoners (2 trials) and soccer referees
(1 trial). Strong evidence for a preventative e ect was found only for wearing a knee brace. ere was also
some moderate evidence for the e ectiveness of heel pads. No evidence was found to support the preventative
e ects of stretching, strengthening or balance exercises. e authors concluded that the evidence for the
e ectiveness of interventions for preventing running injuries is weak and limited. Enke and Gallas (2012)
reviewed the literature on treating and preventing four of the more common running injuries: MTSS, PFS,
ITB syndrome, and Achilles tendinitis. Concerning prevention, they concluded that individualized programs
should be formed, based on the risk factors an athlete is exhibiting. Craig (2008) focused on prevention
of MTSS in his systematic review. e interventions found were shock-absorbing insoles, foam heel pads,
Achilles tendon stretching, footwear selection, and graduated running programs. None of these prevention
methods was e ective. Shock-absorbing insoles were the most promising.
Additionally, Saragiotto et al. (2014) reviewed the studies that investigated risk factors for sustaining running-
related injuries in general. e main risk factor identi ed was a previous injury. Weekly distance, weekly
training frequency, and increased Q-angle were the only other risk factors identi ed in at least two trials.
Reducing training volume is probably an e ective, but impractical method for most runners, especially
professionals. Rudzki (1997) showed that reducing the running distance (and adding more weighted
marching instead) results in lower injury rates among military recruits. ese ndings are clearly not relevant
for runners, but if they are able to a ord some cross-training, they could lower the injury risk.
Certainly, there are interventions that could bene t almost all runners. For instance, lowering ground
reaction forces is a good idea in general. Clansey, Hanlon, Wallace, Nevill, and Lake (2014) successfully
reduced ground reaction forces-related parameters with gait retraining method. ey used what is referred
to as biofeedback or real-time feedback method. Participants ran on a treadmill, receiving information about
peak tibial acceleration. ey were instructed to correct the technique in a way to minimize this parameter.
A er only six 20-minute sessions spread over three weeks, peak tibial acceleration and both average and
instantaneous vertical force loading rates were signi cantly decreased. Crowell and Davis (2011) managed to
lower the same three parameters in their trial. What is more, the reductions were preserved until one-month
follow-up measurements. It seems that feedback methods could provide an e ective way to lower ground
reaction forces and thus reducing injury risk.
Sharma et al. (2014) combined biofeedback methods with an exercise program. is combination substantially
reduced the incidence for sustaining MTSS among military recruits over 26 weeks of a military training
program. e exercises used were (unlike in most other, unsuccessful, trials) judiciously chosen. Some good
examples include bird dog, single-leg squats, drop jumps, single-leg hops, star-excursion stability exercise
(touching several marked points on the ground with the free leg in single-leg stance), hip exors stretch, hip
extensors stretch and ankle plantar exors stretch.
Snyder, Earl, O’Connor, and Ebersole (2009) conducted an interesting trial. Participants underwent a six-
week resistance training intervention (3 training sessions per week) that included three exercises in one-
legged support: pelvic rotation in the frontal plane, and two hip rotation exercises, with di erent directions
of the load applied by cables. Participants exhibited lower foot pronation but greater hip adduction range of
motion during running a er the intervention. is is another indication that prior assessment of the athlete
should be carried out in order to identify which (if any) risk factors he/she is exhibiting. is intervention
may bene t runners with excessive pronation but may do even more harm to those exhibiting excessive hip
adduction. Another important aspect of individualized treatment is footwear selection. Motion control shoes,
for instance, do reduce injury rates, but only in runners with excessive foot pronation (Malisoux et al., 2016).
Since the greatest risk factors for sustaining running-related injury are mostly unmodi able (e.g. previous
injury, training volume), it seems that individualized treatment is the best approach to prevention. Every
individual needs to be assessed in order to nd risk factors he/she is exhibiting. en, these factors should be
addressed with appropriate interventions. Such an approach would likely be more e ective than generalized
prevention programs.
Conclusion
Runners are particularly prone to developing overuse injuries. Evidence regarding prevention methods is
weak and limited, with only a few interventions showing bene ts. Two of the greatest risk factors are previous
injury and training volume. We obviously cannot control the rst, while training volume may be modi able
in recreational runners. It seems that designing individualized prevention programs is the best bet for now.
Methods for gait retraining are showing some promising results for reducing ground impact forces. More
trials to evaluate the e ects of interventions on risk factors are desired, along with incidence studies, to
determine the direct impact of interventions on injury risk.
UDC 796.412.5:613.64 73
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
R E F E R E N C E S
Ackermann, P. W., & Renstrom, P. (2012). Tendinopathy in sport. Sports Health, 4(3), 193-201.
Aderem, J., & Louw, Q. A. (2015). Biomechanical risk factors associated with iliotibial band syndrome in
runners: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16(1), 356.
Anderson, T. (1996). Biomechanics and running economy. Sports Medicine, 22(2), 76-89.
Andres, B. M., & Murrell, G. A. (2008). Treatment of tendinopathy: what works, what does not, and what is on
the horizon. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 466(7), 1539-1554.
Bolgla, L. A., & Boling, M. C. (2011). An update for the conservative management of patellofemoral pain
syndrome: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2010. International Journal of Sports Physical
erapy, 6(2), 112-125.
Clansey, A. C., Hanlon, M., Wallace, E. S., Nevill, A., & Lake, M. J. (2014). In uence of tibial shock feedback
training on impact loading and running economy. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(5), 973-981.
Craig, D. I. (2008). Medial tibial stress syndrome: evidence-based prevention. Journal of Athletic Training,
43(3), 316-318.
Crowell, H. P., & Davis, I. S. (2011). Gait retraining to reduce lower extremity loading in runners. Clinical
Biomechanics, 26(1), 78-83.
Davis, I., Milner, C.E., & Hamill, J. (2004). Does increased loading during running lead to tibial stress fractures?
A prospective study Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5), S58.
DiFiori, J. P., Benjamin, H. J., Brenner, J. S., Gregory, A., Jayanthi, N., Landry, G. L., & Luke, A. (2014). Overuse
injuries and burnout in youth sports: a position statement from the American Medical Society for Sports
Medicine. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(4), 287-288.
Dugan, S. A., & Bhat, K. P. (2005). Biomechanics and analysis of running gait. Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 16(3), 603-621.
Enke, R. C., & Gallas, J. E. (2012). Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Common Running Injuries. e
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 19(2), 86-94.
Fairclough, J., Hayashi, K., Toumi, H., Lyons, K., Bydder, G., Phillips, N., Best, T.M. & Benjamin, M. (2007). Is
iliotibial band syndrome really a friction syndrome? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 10(2), 74-76.
Ford, K. R., Nguyen, A. D., Dischiavi, S. L., Hegedus, E. J., Zuk, E. F., & Taylor, J. B. (2015). An evidence-based
review of hip-focused neuromuscular exercise interventions to address dynamic lower extremity valgus.
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 6, 291-303.
Franklyn, M., & Oakes, B. (2015). Aetiology and mechanisms of injury in medial tibial stress syndrome: Current
and future developments. World Journal of Orthopedics, 6(8), 577-589.
Fredericson, M., Cookingham, C. L., Chaudhari, A. M., Dowdell, B. C., Oestreicher, N., & Sahrmann, S. A.
(2000). Hip abductor weakness in distance runners with iliotibial band syndrome. Clinical Journal of Sport
Medicine, 10(3), 169-175.
Galbraith, R. M., & Lavallee, M. E. (2009). Medial tibial stress syndrome: conservative treatment options.
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 2(3), 127-133.
Go , J. D., & Crawford, R. (2011). Diagnosis and treatment of plantar fasciitis. American Family Physician,
84(6), 676-682.
Grau, S., Krauss, I., Maiwald, C., Best, R., & Horstmann, T. (2008). Hip abductor weakness is not the cause for
iliotibial band syndrome. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(7), 579-583.
Hamner, S. R., Seth, A., & Delp, S. L. (2010). Muscle contributions to propulsion and support during running.
Journal of Biomechanics, 43(14), 2709-2716.
Heintjes, E., Berger, M. Y., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Bernsen, R. M., Verhaar, J. A., & Koes, B. W. (2004).
Pharmacotherapy for patellofemoral pain syndrome. e Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3),
CD003470.
Holmes, S. W., Jr., & Clancy, W. G., Jr. (1998). Clinical classi cation of patellofemoral pain and dysfunction.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical erapy, 28(5), 299-306.
Johnston, C. A., Taunton, J. E., Lloyd-Smith, D. R., & McKenzie, D. C. (2003). Preventing running injuries.
Practical approach for family doctors. Canadian Family Physician, 49, 1101-1109.
Kurppa, K., Waris, P., & Rokkanen, P. (1979). Peritendinitis and tenosynovitis. A review. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment & Health, 5(3), 19-24.
Lavine, R. (2010). Iliotibial band friction syndrome. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 3(1-4), 18-22.
Lemont, H., Ammirati, K. M., & Usen, N. (2003). Plantar fasciitis: a degenerative process (fasciosis) without
in ammation. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 93(3), 234-237.
Lopes, A. D., Junior, L. C. H., Yeung, S. S., & Costa, L. O. P. (2012). What are the Main Running-Related
Musculoskeletal Injuries? Sports Medicine, 42(10), 891-905.
Lucas, C. A. (1992). Iliotibial band friction syndrome as exhibited in athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 27(3),
250-252.
Malisoux, L., Chambon, N., Delattre, N., Gueguen, N., Urhausen, A., & eisen, D. (2016). Injury risk
in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and
assessor blinding. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(8), 481-487.
McCarty, E. C., Walsh, W. M., Hald, R. D., Peter, L. E., & Mellion, M. B. (2010). Musculoskeletal Injuries in
Sports. In M. C. Madden, M. Putukian, C. C. Young & E. C. McCarty (Eds.), Netter’s Sports Medicine (299-
303). Philadelphia, US: Saunders/Elsevier.
74 UDC 796.412.5:613.64
RUNNING INJURY PREVENTION | Ž. KOZINC & N. ŠARABON
Milner, C. E., Ferber, R., Pollard, C. D., Hamill, J., & Davis, I. S. (2006). Biomechanical factors associated with
tibial stress fracture in female runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(2), 323-328.
Molloy, L. A. (2012). Managing chronic plantar fasciitis: when conservative strategies fail. Journal of the
American Academy of Physician Assistants, 25(11), 48, 50, 52-43.
Morley, J. B., Decker, L. M., Dierks, T., Blanke, D., French, J. A., & Stergiou, N. (2010). E ects of varying amounts
of pronation on the mediolateral ground reaction forces during barefoot versus shod running. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 26(2), 205-214.
Nattiv, A., Loucks, A. B., Manore, M. M., Sanborn, C. F., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Warren, M. P., & American College
of Sports, Medicine. (2007). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. e female athlete triad.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(10), 1867-1882
Newman, P., Witchalls, J., Waddington, G., & Adams, R. (2013). Risk factors associated with medial tibial stress
syndrome in runners: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 4,
229-241.
Nicola, T. L., & El Shami, A. (2012). Rehabilitation of running injuries. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 31(2),
351-372.
Nicola, T. L., & Jewison, D. J. (2012). e anatomy and biomechanics of running. Clinical Journal of Sport
Medicine, 31(2), 187-201.
Novacheck, T. F. (1998). e biomechanics of running. Gait & Posture, 7(1), 77-95.
Pal, S., Draper, C. E., Fredericson, M., Gold, G. E., Delp, S. L., Beaupre, G. S., & Besier, T. F. (2011). Patellar
maltracking correlates with vastus medialis activation delay in patellofemoral pain patients. e American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(3), 590-598.
Petersen, W., Ellermann, A., Gosele-Koppenburg, A., Best, R., Rembitzki, I. V., Bruggemann, G. P., & Liebau, C.
(2014). Patellofemoral pain syndrome. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 22(10), 2264-2274.
Pink, M., Perry, J., Houglum, P. A., & Devine, D. J. (1994). Lower extremity range of motion in the recreational
sport runner. e American Journal of Sports Medicine, 22(4), 541-549.
Powers, C. M. (2003). e in uence of altered lower-extremity kinematics on patellofemoral joint dysfunction:
a theoretical perspective. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical erapy, 33(11), 639-646.
Putukian, M., McCarty, E. C. , & Sebastianelli, W. (2010). Football. In M. C. Madden, M. Putukian, C. C. Young
& E. C. McCarty (Eds.), Netter’s Sports Medicine. Philadelphia, US: Saunders/Elsevier.
Rees, J. D., Ma ulli, N., & Cook, J. (2009). Management of tendinopathy. e American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 37(9), 1855-1867.
Roos, K. G., & Marshall, S. W. (2014). De nition and usage of the term “overuse injury” in the US high school
and collegiate sport epidemiology literature: a systematic review. Sports Medicine, 44(3), 405-421.
Rudzki, S. J. (1997). Injuries in Australian Army recruits. Part I: Decreased incidence and severity of injury seen
with reduced running distance. Military Medicine, 162(7), 472-476.
Rutland, M., O’Connell, D., Brismee, J. M., Sizer, P., Apte, G., & O’Connell, J. (2010). Evidence-supported
rehabilitation of patellar tendinopathy. North American Journal of Sports Physical erapy, 5(3), 166-178.
Salehi, I., Khazaeli, S., Hatami, P., & Malekpour, M. (2010). Bone density in patients with chondromalacia
patella. Rheumatology International, 30(8), 1137-1138.
Saragiotto, B. T., Yamato, T. P., Hespanhol Junior, L. C., Rainbow, M. J., Davis, I. S., & Lopes, A. D. (2014). What
are the main risk factors for running-related injuries? Sports Medicine, 44(8), 1153-1163.
Sharma, J., Weston, M., Batterham, A. M., & Spears, I. R. (2014). Gait retraining and incidence of medial tibial
stress syndrome in army recruits. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(9), 1684-1692.
Snyder, K. R., Earl, J. E., O’Connor, K. M., & Ebersole, K. T. (2009). Resistance training is accompanied
by increases in hip strength and changes in lower extremity biomechanics during running. Clinical
Biomechanics, 24(1), 26-34.
Verdini, F., Marcucci, M., Benedetti, M. G., & Leo, T. (2006). Identi cation and characterisation of heel strike
transient. Gait & Posture, 24(1), 77-84.
Videbaek, S., Bueno, A. M., Nielsen, R. O., & Rasmussen, S. (2015). Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per
1000 h of running in Di erent Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine,
45(7), 1017-1026.
Waclawski, E. R., Beach, J., Milne, A., Yacyshyn, E., & Dryden, D. M. (2015). Systematic review: plantar fasciitis
and prolonged weight bearing. Occupational Medicine, 65(2), 97-106.
Welck, M. J., Hayes, T., Pastides, P., Khan, W., & Rudge, B. (2015). Stress fractures of the foot and ankle. Injur y,
15, 343-345.
Wentz, L., Liu, P. Y., Haymes, E., & Ilich, J. Z. (2011). Females have a greater incidence of stress fractures than
males in both military and athletic populations: a systemic review. Military Medicine, 176(4), 420-430.
Williams, P. T., & ompson, P. D. (2013). Walking versus running for hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes
mellitus risk reduction. Arteriosclerosis, rombosis, and Vascular Biology, 33(5), 1085-1091.
Willy, R. W., & Davis, I. S. (2011). e e ect of a hip-strengthening program on mechanics during running and
during a single-leg squat. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical erapy, 41(9), 625-632.
Yeung, S. S., Yeung, E. W., & Gillespie, L. D. (2011). Interventions for preventing lower limb so -tissue running
injuries. e Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7), CD001256.
Zadpoor, A. A., & Nikooyan, A. A. (2011). e relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the
ground reaction force: a systematic review. Clinical Biomechanics, 26(1), 23-28.
