It’s quite interesting that only eight studies in the review of research were included. As you stated, a sign of the varied approaches to return to high speed running.
We definitely use the pain or absence of it for making decisions on starting a return to high speed running.
I think we struggle with not having a clear progression in mind from there. Generally we follow a system of one non contact day, into a contact training day with reduced volumes, and then a full training session.
Some structural issues we’re facing as a club are definitely getting in the way of a more robust return to running program. Growing pains of a new club for sure.
You make a good point about the limited number of studies included in the review. It really highlights how variable the approaches to returning to high speed running still are across the literature and in practice.
Using pain or the absence of pain as an entry point for reintroducing high speed running is quite common, but like you said, the challenge is often what the progression looks like from there. That is where many practitioners are still relying on internal frameworks rather than clear published guidelines.
Your progression from non contact to reduced contact and then full training is also very typical in team sport environments. In reality, the structure of the training week and club constraints often shape the return to play process just as much as the ideal rehabilitation plan.
It will be interesting to see more work in the future around how practitioners structure high speed running exposure between the first sprint and full training integration, as that middle phase is probably where the biggest uncertainty still exists.
Another excellent article!
It’s quite interesting that only eight studies in the review of research were included. As you stated, a sign of the varied approaches to return to high speed running.
We definitely use the pain or absence of it for making decisions on starting a return to high speed running.
I think we struggle with not having a clear progression in mind from there. Generally we follow a system of one non contact day, into a contact training day with reduced volumes, and then a full training session.
Some structural issues we’re facing as a club are definitely getting in the way of a more robust return to running program. Growing pains of a new club for sure.
Thanks for sharing this article!
Thanks Finn, glad you found it useful.
You make a good point about the limited number of studies included in the review. It really highlights how variable the approaches to returning to high speed running still are across the literature and in practice.
Using pain or the absence of pain as an entry point for reintroducing high speed running is quite common, but like you said, the challenge is often what the progression looks like from there. That is where many practitioners are still relying on internal frameworks rather than clear published guidelines.
Your progression from non contact to reduced contact and then full training is also very typical in team sport environments. In reality, the structure of the training week and club constraints often shape the return to play process just as much as the ideal rehabilitation plan.
It will be interesting to see more work in the future around how practitioners structure high speed running exposure between the first sprint and full training integration, as that middle phase is probably where the biggest uncertainty still exists.
This is a lovely example of taking an academic source, i.e the scoping review, and translating it into good, clear practical advice for practitioners.
Thank you Mike, appreciate the kind words. Hope you're doing well.