The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?
Gabbett · 2016 · British Journal of Sports Medicine 50(5):273–280
Review · Rang 3 von 9
What this work gives Aellic
Source of the corridor Aellic ships, twice stated verbatim: “acute:chronic workload ratios within the range of 0.8–1.3 could be considered the training ‘sweet spot’, while acute:chronic workload ratios ≥1.5 represent the ‘danger zone’”. Acute load is one week of training, “a logical and convenient unit”.
Correction of 26 July 2026
Two things were attributed to this paper that are not its own. (1) The 28-day chronic window: Gabbett defines chronic load as “the rolling average of the most recent 3–6 weeks of training”, not a fixed four weeks — the 28-day figure and the corridor figure it is drawn in come from blanch2016 , which this paper credits in the caption. (2) The two- to fourfold injury risk above 1.5 does appear here, but as a report of someone else's data; the primary source is hulin2014 in cricket fast bowlers. Both are now filed separately and carry Aellic's window constants.
The entry on the register was wrong. It was not replaced but kept — with what holds instead standing next to it.
Where this sits in the engine
3 declared sites — constants and thresholds in the code that point at this entry.
- Training Training load — zones, TRIMP, ACWR 3 sites
Register entry gabbett2016 · Review