There has been an awful lot written and discussed about running injuries over the years, but very little that separates injury from pain. What do I mean by “separating injury from pain”? Well until we update our beliefs and understanding around how pain works, there is going to be a continually growing number of runners who are suffering unnecessarily – and this fact really gets on my goat.
Common running injuries – what the research says
According to various research studies, Runner’s Knee (Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome) is the most common running injury, followed by Plantar Fasciitis (foot and heel pain). The graph below shows some more details:
The data for this graph has come from research studies conducted mainly between 1980 (Noble, 1980) and 2018 (Mulvad et al., 2018; Sahu et al., 2018) with the most often cited in blogs, articles, courses and presentations coming from 2002 (Taunton et al., 2002). It strikes me that more updated research is due, although there are a couple of more recent studies we can look at but it’s not enough to get a full picture of the current situation.
The first is a one-year study by Desai et al., 2020 where they found a 46% cumulative incidence of running-related injuries, with the knee (27%) and Achilles tendon/calf (25%) being the most common injury locations. As this study looked at runners who had a previous history of injury, it was slightly different from some of the other research. What is most interesting in terms of location is that again, the knee was the most common site of pain.
I’m always interested in what the definitions of a running related injury are in studies, and in how the experience of pain is reported. In this particular study, they used the following consensus statement:
“a running-related musculoskeletal pain in the lower limbs or back that causes restriction of running (distance, speed, duration, or training) in more than 66% of all training sessions in 2 consecutive weeks or in more than 50% of all training sessions in 4 consecutive weeks, or that requires the runner to consult a physician or other health professional.”
To me, the really interesting part about that qualification of a running-related-injury is that it is self-reported, and even if the runner consulted a physician or other health professional, there is no mention as to whether there needed to be any actual tissue issue – something that will become relevant shortly.
The other recent study was by Stenerson et al., 2023. This was a survey driven study, so again it relied upon self-reporting – in this case the responses were submitted anonymously. The aim of the study was to look at the relationship of overuse injuries and training parameters. They found that most runners (84.4%) had an injury history with 46.6% experiencing a running-related injury in the previous year. There was a slight difference in location with the foot and ankle (30.9%) being the most common site of reported pain followed by the knee (22.2%).
What is clear to me from all of these studies is:
- The existence of an injury is determined by an experience of pain rather than any evidenced tissue issue such as fractures, lacerations, torn muscles, muscle strain or any other physical damage. This itself is actually a positive, or would be if it weren’t for most people’s current understanding and beliefs around the word injury.
- The experience of pain is self-reported, and only provides information on the location of the pain, not necessarily the site of an injury, if indeed one exists. It is now well understood across several professions that where pain is experienced and where a physical injury may be present, are often not the same place.
There are other limitations as well, such as the researchers’ own biases and beliefs around pain and their interpretation of what pain might mean in the context of a runner. But let’s put these things to one side for now, as the two primary limitations I highlighted above are more than enough to be concerned with.
What we need to do is start making some distinctions around injury and pain, and update ourselves on what is really happening when we feel pain. This is exactly what this article, and the next few articles, are all about. Sit back, buckle up and open your mind – we’re going on a journey into the wonderful world of pain!
I’m injured!
But are you? How do you know? Did a running buddy say it was runner’s knee or ‘plantar f’? Yes, you’re in pain – but does that mean you are injured? Perhaps it depends on your definition of injury. Here are some of the common ones:
Medical Definition
“Injury”: Damage or harm caused to the structure or function of the body due to an external agent or force.
Source: World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO includes injuries in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD), defining them broadly as any physical damage caused by external factors, including trauma and poisoning.
Sports and Physical Activity Definition
“Injury”: Any physical complaint sustained during training or competition that results in the athlete needing to stop, limit, or modify their activity.
Source: Consensus documents from sports medicine organisations, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM).
Occupational Health Definition
“Injury”: Physical damage arising from a specific incident or exposure in the workplace, such as cuts, fractures, burns, or musculoskeletal strains.
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or similar regulatory bodies worldwide.
There are also legal definitions and psychological definitions, but they take us a bit wide of the mark for what we are learning about here.
You’ll notice that two out of the three definitions above state that tissue damage has taken place, while the Sports and Physical Activity definition just mentions a physical complaint. Why is it important to notice this? Well, it highlights the fact that most official definitions, like most of our beliefs, support the idea that an injury has a physical damage element. This in itself isn’t really an issue, except for the fact that almost all of us link pain to injury, and therefore are linking pain to physical damage. This is the problem.
It is encouraging though, that the sports definition recognises, perhaps indirectly, that physical damage doesn’t need to be present for an injury to exist. This is helpful because we can say in this context that we have an injury without there necessarily being any physical damage. It frees us to have a pain that stops us from running without there needing to be an assumption that physical damage exists. If we all thought like this, some of the research would be more helpful: instead of looking for a physical tissue issue reason for a runner’s knee pain, we would automatically be taking lots of non-tissue issue possibilities into account as well.
You may think I’m being really picky (I am!), but I feel it’s important because those studies on common running injuries are all based on some variance on the medical definition of an injury that includes an assumption (or foregone conclusion) that physical damage is present as well as pain. This is very limiting to us as runners as it brings in feelings of fear that we may further ‘damage’ our tissues, or that we need to spend weeks or months seeing injury specialists that are basing their (almost always well-intentioned) solutions around the fact that there is some aspect of physical damage or physical movement issue when there may be none at all.
In fact, there is some research (Van Mechelen, 1992; Vincent & Vincent, 2017; Salzler et al., 2020) that suggests that between 20% and 56% of runners report pain even though the original physical damage has long-since healed. This is what we call a chronic pain state. But I would suggest that even that percentage is on the low side; the research isn’t there to determine this one way or the other unfortunately, and with the varying definitions of injuries and outdated beliefs around pain, it is more reliable to look at what is happening in the pain neuroscience fields and learn from that.
It may seem like you’ve read a lot in this article so far and not moved forward much, but getting a background to what you hear and are told (even by medical professionals) about injury and pain is important as it allows you to put it all into context with your own pain.
The real point I want to make here is that we say “I have a running injury” when what would be far more helpful is to say “I have a running pain”. This frees us from making a possible incorrect assumption that there is always physical damage that we need to be wary of.
I know, this can be challenging and it’s far easier to carry on thinking as you have done, but making this paradigm shift can open up a whole new selection of possible solutions that could get you out of pain and back to running very quickly – and at a fraction of the financial cost.
To summarise this section:
- Most definitions of injury include some aspect of physical tissue damage.
- Most of the research around running injuries use some variation of these definitions of injury, so an assumption is made that there is a physical tissue damage element – even if that is only how we as non-scientists interpret it.
- We have read, listened, watched, been instructed about, taught, and been convinced that pain and injury are inseparably interlinked.
- This thinking is limiting our pain modulation and rehab options, and is often the primary cause for runners not being able to return to running sooner.
It’s time to break away from these limiting beliefs with a new understanding of how pain works and what we can do about it. Join me for the next article where we’ll dive right in.
