It has been proposed to bin the term ‘overuse’ injury and replace it with ‘training load error’ as a more accurate term.1 There are several concerns with this proposal. To warrant a name change, the new name should provide additional benefit beyond that which overuse currently provides, be based on reasonable and sound arguments and assumptions, and be coherent with the best practice and evidence available. Training load is just one factor among an array of factors that may contribute to overuse injury occurrence, as has been highlighted in more complex models.2 Defining overuse injuries as training load errors is a negation of their multifactorial nature. If training load error was to be adopted, this would not be a question of defining an event by its mechanisms, but defining the event by arbitrary picking one of the potential antecedent causal factors among different levels of the injury causal pathway. Such misuse of terminology may provide temptation to rename reinjury occurrence when returning to play or training as ‘physiotherapy error’ injuries, various intraoperative …

中文翻译：

---

“训练负荷错误”并不比“过度使用”伤害更准确

有人提议将术语“过度使用”伤害合并为更准确的术语“训练负荷错误”。1 该提议存在几个问题。为保证更名，新名称应提供超出目前过度使用提供的额外好处，基于合理和合理的论点和假设，并与可用的最佳实践和证据保持一致。正如在更复杂的模型中所强调的那样，训练负荷只是可能导致过度使用伤害发生的一系列因素中的一个。2 将过度使用伤害定义为训练负荷错误是对其多因素性质的否定。如果要采用训练负荷误差，这将不是通过其机制定义事件的问题，但是通过在不同级别的损伤因果路径中任意挑选潜在的先行因果因素之一来定义事件。这种对术语的误用可能会诱使人们将重返比赛或训练时重新命名为“理疗错误”伤害、各种术中……