In an early observational SmartRunning group of about 60 marathon runners, 90% were recorded as reaching their stated goal and 6% reported an injury during preparation. These figures are encouraging, but they do not establish causation because there was no control group and key outcome definitions still need formal documentation.
A good result is worth sharing. It is also worth saying exactly what it can and cannot tell us.
The first SmartRunning prototype group produced two numbers we wanted to understand properly: a high proportion reached the goal recorded for their preparation, and a small proportion reported an injury. Neither number proves SmartRunning caused the outcome.
90% reached their stated goal
For a training app, that is obviously a result we are pleased to see.
But “reached their stated goal” can cover different objectives, and the strength of the result depends on how those goals were defined and recorded. Before we use the figure as formal evidence, the exact denominator, goal definition, follow-up and any dropouts should be documented clearly.
What we can say today is:
A high proportion of this first SmartRunning group achieved the goal recorded for their marathon preparation.
That gives us a promising starting point. It does not give SmartRunning permission to promise the same outcome to every future runner.
Only 6% of the group reported an injury during preparation.
Given how important injury awareness is to SmartRunning, that is a result worth following closely.
We are aware of the limitations of these first findings.
There was no control group following another plan, and “injury” can be defined in different ways. A physical complaint, an injury that causes missed training and a medically diagnosed injury are not necessarily the same outcome. The exact definition and observation period therefore matter.
The responsible conclusion is that this early group produced an encouraging injury outcome while using SmartRunning’s injury-aware training approach.
Encouraging evidence, not the end of the evidence
This was an observational early group, not a randomized controlled trial.
That does not make the results unimportant. For SmartRunning, the useful next step is to keep building the evidence: larger groups, clearer definitions, consistent follow-up and eventually better comparisons of outcomes between different types of runners.
That approach also fits how we want SmartRunning to behave as a brand: progress runners can trust, without turning promising numbers into hype. The brand itself is built around steadiness, clarity and protecting the runner’s long-term relationship with running.
So, the takeaway from this first group is deliberately measured:
The early results are promising. The next question is whether the same pattern holds as more runners use SmartRunning and the outcomes are defined and tracked more rigorously.
See how SmartRunning is being tested and how we are building the evidence without turning early results into promises.