[The impact of pain-related misconceptions and beliefs on the behaviour of athletic runners].

The onset of running-related pain, whether during or after running training or during a running competition, is a very common phenomenon among runners. This type of pain is most often closely related to the occurrence of running injuries, which is why it is important how runners interpret and respond to it. This is a complex process involving several factors, but misconceptions and beliefs about pain have a significant impact on runners' decisions. It is important for doctors and physical therapists to understand how runners behave when they experience pain and what influences their decisions. This can contribute to the development of more effective injury prevention and treatment strategies. The aim of this summary is to explore runners' misconceptions and beliefs about pain and to identify the harmful behavior patterns that result from them and their causes. The most common misconception among runners is that pain is a natural part of running and should be ignored. Most runners continue running despite the pain. They usually only take the pain seriously when it becomes unmanageable and requires a longer break from running. This behavior leads to tissue overload, injuries, and prolonged rehabilitation. It is also apparent that runners find it difficult to judge whether pain is really a sign of injury or just a consequence of adapting to training. One reason for this is that runners have little knowledge about pain management or rely on misinformation. Furthermore, the psychological characteristics of runners, such as perfectionism and obsessive passion, also play an important role in maintaining this type of harmful behavior. In the future, it would be important to pay more attention to educational programs that provide runners with reliable information on the interpretation and management of pain. It would also be advisable to integrate the importance of recognizing harmful psychological factors into these programs. Orv Hetil. 2026; 167(16): 621-627.