LAUSR

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 …