REF-1001 · Raysmith & Drew, 2016 · Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Performance success or failure is influenced by weeks lost to injury and illness in elite Australian track and field athletes: A 5-year prospective study

Blimited evidenceMeasured on elite to world-class athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

A prospective cohort study of 33 international track and field athletes over five international competition seasons (76 athlete seasons). Training status was recorded weekly; over the 6-month preparation season the authors related training weeks completed and injury/illness events to success or failure of a performance goal at major championships.

Athletes who completed >80% of planned training weeks were 7-times more likely to achieve the goal, training availability accounted for 86% of successful seasons, and every modified training week significantly reduced the chance of success.

Participants

n=33 track and field athletes competing internationally, followed over five international competition seasons (76 athlete seasons). Events, sex and age are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Athlete training status recorded weekly over a 5-year period.
Window analysed: the 6-month preparation season before major championships.
Exposures: training weeks completed; number of injury/illness events. Outcome: success or failure of a performance goal at major championships.
Analysis: two-by-two tables with attributable risks in the exposed (AFE); mixed-model logistic regression; ROC analysis for the optimal threshold of training week completion.

Key Results

Athletes who completed >80% of their planned training weeks were 7 times more likely to reach their performance goal (AUC 0.72; 95%CI 0.64-0.81).
86% of the successful seasons were attributable to training availability (AFE=0.86, 95%CI, 0.46 to 0.96).
Each modified training week brought a significant fall in the chance of success (OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.58 to 0.94).
Most new injuries (30%) came in the preparation season's first month, and most illnesses (50%) within 2 months of the event.

Practical Application

"How much does missing training actually cost?" In 33 international track and field athletes followed over 76 athlete seasons (prospective cohort, between-season association, not an experiment), completing >80% of planned training weeks in the 6-month preparation went with a 7-times higher likelihood of reaching the performance goal, and each modified training week lowered the odds of success (OR=0.74). Being available to train was the strongest thing this study could see.
What was measured: weeks completed or modified, injury/illness events, goal reached or not. What was not: training content, load, fitness, or why some athletes were injured.
The threshold came from this dataset (ROC), in elite athletics; it is a measured figure for that group, not a universal cut-off.
Timing in this cohort: new injuries clustered in the first month of preparation, illnesses within 2-months of the event.
Inference, not tested here: for an endurance amateur the same logic — first ask whether the block was actually done — is reasonable, but the size of the effect is unknown.

Limitations

Observational: athletes who lose weeks may differ in other ways (reverse causation and confounding are possible).
Small cohort with repeated seasons per athlete; wide interval on the attributable fraction (0.46 to 0.96).
"Performance goal" and "modified training week" are not defined in the abstract.
Elite track and field; events not listed, so the share of endurance athletes is unknown.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

small cohort (n=33 athletes, 76 athlete seasons), observational