Can Strength Training and Foam Rolling Reduce Running Injuries?
by Doug Stewart
A paper from January of this year explored the impact of an 18-week general strength training and foam rolling programme on injury rates amongst recreational runners.
A large sample of 433 runners (203 female) was divided into two groups: the intervention group (228 runners) and the control group (205 runners). Both groups had an average age of 39 years old. The subjects had to be running over 15km per week on average. They also had to have been free of musculoskeletal injuries for the past 6 months.
The control group maintained their regular run training, whilst the intervention group completed two general strength training and foam-rolling exercises twice weekly for the 18 weeks in addition to their running. The injury prevention programme took a total of 30 minutes to complete, with the strength exercises including forward lunges, single leg squats, side planks, and foot strengthening. The foam rolling targeted the upper and lower leg. The programme can be viewed here.
All participants reported on their training and any running-related pain on a weekly basis. Any injuries that had been formally diagnosed by a trained external medical professional were also detailed through the weekly review.
The intervention group were sub divided into three groups for analysis following completion of the study. This was based on whether they had Low, Medium or High compliance rates to the strength and foam-rolling intervention. Compliance was set up as:
Low – less than 1 session per week (0-17 sessions completed). 100 runners fell into this category
Medium – 18 to 31 sessions completed. 63 runners fell into this category.
High - ±10% of the recommended sessions completed (32 – 40 sessions). 65 runners fell into this category.
Over the 18 weeks, 100 running injuries were reported, with an incidence rate of 27.1% in the control and 23% in the intervention group. This was not significantly different between the groups, so it appears at a high level that the intervention did not have an effect on injury rates.
However, when comparing the High compliance intervention group versus the control group, there was a significant difference, with the High compliance group being 85% less likely to sustain an injury during the study than the control group.
The control group ran on average 20.5km per week, compared to the following splits in the intervention group:
Low compliance: 17.1km
Medium compliance: 20.3km
High compliance: 24.8km.
Is the higher weekly distance the results of fewer injuries, or an indicator of more robustness, or that of having more experienced runners in the subgroup?
Unfortunately, with a study like this over such a long duration, there are so many variables, such as the participants also doing other activities like yoga and skiing during the 18-week programme. Ultimately, the cause of injuries is often multifaceted, so it is important to acknowledge that a lot of things can happen over 18 weeks that will have influenced the participants. Also, the study relied on self-reporting, so what one individual may note down as running-related pain, another may not, for example.
However, there have been several studies now looking at various strength training interventions with endurance athletes and associated injury rates. Whilst adding strength training to endurance running training seems to have mixed outcomes, it appears that, overall, the individuals with higher compliance rates have a reduced injury rate – supporting the findings here.
References:
Desai, P., Jungmalm, J., Börjesson, M., Karlsson, J., & Grau, S. (2023). Effectiveness of an 18‐week general strength and foam‐rolling intervention on running‐related injuries in recreational runners. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports.