REF-925 · Buist et al., 2007 · The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

No effect of a graded training program on the number of running-related injuries in novice runners: a randomized controlled trial

Astrong evidenceMeasured on non-athletes and recreational peopleWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

GRONORUN (Groningen Novice Running) randomly assigned novice runners training for a recreational 4-mile (6.7-km) event either to a standard 8-week programme or to a modified, graded 13-week programme built on the 10% training rule. Both groups used an Internet-based running log.

A running-related injury (RRI) meant any lower-extremity or back musculoskeletal complaint that limited running for at least 1 week. RRI incidence was 20.8% with the graded programme and 20.3% with the standard one. The authors conclude that, in novice runners, the graded programme with the 10% rule had no effect on how often RRIs occurred.

Participants

n=532 novice runners (abstract: "N = 532"), all training toward a 4-mile (6.7-km) recreational race. Age, sex and group sizes are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Control: standard 8-week training programme.
Intervention: adapted, graded, 13-week training programme based on the 10% training rule.
Running characteristics and RRI registered in an Internet-based running log.
Primary outcome: RRIs per 100 participants. RRI = any lower-extremity or back musculoskeletal complaint that limited running for at least 1 week.

Key Results

Incidence of RRI: 20.8% in the graded training programme group vs 20.3% in the standard training programme group.
The graded programme was not preventive for sustaining an RRI (χ² = 0.016, df = 1, P = .90).

Practical Application

In 532 novice runners randomised to a graded 13-week programme built on the 10% rule or a standard 8-week programme for the same 4-mile event, about one in five was injured in each group (20.8% vs 20.3%, P = .90). To "does increasing by no more than 10% a week protect a beginner from injury?": in the one randomised trial of it, no.
The base rate matters for a beginner: roughly a fifth of novices in either programme had a complaint that restricted running for at least 1 week.
Inference, not tested here: the trial compared a slower build with a standard one; it does not show that any rate of increase is safe.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the observational cohorts on larger weekly jumps are REF-619 and REF-623, and the beginner structure — frequency first, then duration, then intensity — is in SYNTH-75.

Limitations

The two programmes differ in length as well as in progression, so exposure time differs between groups.
Injuries were self-registered in an online log.
Novices preparing for a short event; no information on experienced runners or on marathon builds.
The abstract gives no participant characteristics, adherence or injury sites.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

large two-arm RCT (N = 532) whose design was published beforehand (Buist 2007, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 10.1186/1471-2474-8-24); authors' "Level of evidence, 1"