This document discusses managing training load for high-level athletes. It describes different stages of fatigue from acute fatigue to overtraining syndrome. A study examined the effects of functional overreaching versus acute fatigue strategies on performance. Subjects underwent an overload training period, taper period, and were tested on performance and physiological measures. The functional overreaching group showed greater short-term performance decrements but larger performance gains after tapering compared to the acute fatigue group. Monitoring multiple factors can help diagnose overtraining and optimize training programs.

1. MANAGING TRAINING LOAD FOR HIGH LEVEL PERFORMANCE
Yann LE MEUR1
1 French Institute of Sport, Paris, France
Consejo Superior de Deportes
CAR Madrid, 13th October 2014
@YLMSportScience

4. Per week
5x Swimming
7x Cycling
7x Running
2x S&C
By Malcolm Brown
Leeds Metropolitan University

5. … but how hard ?

7. TRAINING
RECOVERY
COACH

8. THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE
❺ NON FUNCTIONAL
OVERREACHING
❻ OVERTRAINING
SYNDROME
❷ MODERATE FATIGUE
❶ NO FATIGUE
❸ ACUTE FATIGUE
❹ FUNCTIONAL
OVERREACHING
Meeusen et al. MSSE 2013

9. Train hard or go home!
ACUTE FATIGUE
 High perceived fatigue
 No performance decrement after a 24/36h rest period,
 Performance supercompensation
24/36h
performance baseline
THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE

10. Train hard or go home!
 Very high perceived fatigue
 Short-term performance decrement,
 Performance restoration takes from several days to several weeks,
 Performance supercompensation
FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING
Several days to several weeks
performance baseline
THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE

11. Train hard or go home!
 Very intense perceived fatigue
 Short-term decrement in performance capacity (< 1 month),
 Performance restoration…
 … with no performance supercompensation
NON FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING
Several weeks
performance baseline
THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE

12. Train hard or go home!
…
 Very intense perceived fatigue
 Long-term performance decrement (> 1 month)
THE OVERTRAINING
SYNDROME
> One month
performance baseline
THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE

13. WHICH STRATEGY TO CHOOSE?
❸ ACUTE FATIGUE
❹ FUNCTIONAL
OVERREACHING
❺ NON FUNCTIONAL
OVERREACHING
❻ OVERTRAINING
SYNDROME
Meeusen et al. MSSE 2013
❷ MODERATE FATIGUE
❶ NO FATIGUE

14. F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

15. F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

16. F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

17. F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?
Multistage fitness test

18. F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

19. 1. To examine whether the development of a functional overreaching state leads to greater performance supercompensation in comparison to acute fatigue strategy
?
OBJECTIVES

20. 2. To better understand the potential factors associated with the functional overreaching development, including:
 the physiological & psychological responses,
 behavioral response,
 and health. OBJECTIVES

21. PROTOCOL

22. Phase III
(3 weeks)
TRAINING LOAD (% habitual load)
100%
60%
130%
Control group (n = 12)
Phase II
(1 week)
Simulated Taper
(4 weeks)
Pre
Phase I (3 weeks)
Post
T1
T2
T3
T4
Overloading
100%
60%
130%
Phase I
(3 weeks)
Phase II (1week)
Overload training group (n = 28)
Simulated Taper
(4 weeks)
Post
T1
T2
T3
T4
Pre
STUDY DESIGN
Phase III
(3 weeks)
Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

23. Puissance (W)
100W
+25W par 2min
 36h rest period before each test
 Same day, same hour
 Controlled diet during the last 48h
 Hydration guidelines
EXERCISE TEST

24. 7 subjects did not follow the prescribed training due to injury or personal obligations
 Control group: n = 10
 Overload group: n = 23 ADHERENCE TO THE TRAINING PROTOCOL

25. TRAINING LOAD (% habitual load)
Overloading
100%
60%
130%
Phase I (3 weeks)
Phase II
(1 week)
Phase III (3 weeks)
Overload training group
(n = 23)
Simulated Taper (4 weeks)
Post
T1
T2
T3
T4
Pre
STUDY DESIGN

26. • HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE
• PRESERVED & ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
• VERY HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE
• DECREASED PERFORMANCE
ACUTE FATIGUE n = 12
FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING
n = 11 THE OVERLOAD GROUP

27. Control group n = 12
Overload group n = 28
Control group
n = 10
Acute Fatigue
n = 12
F-OR group
n = 11
2 out
5 out THREE GROUPS

28. †††
††† ##
†#
††
†
* vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR
THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Pre
Post
T1
T2
T3
T4
Performance change (% Pre)
Control
Acute Fatigue
Functional overreaching
Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

29. * vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR
10 ± 7W
18 ± 8W
9 ± 4W
THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND

30. Train hard or go home!
Acute fatigue
Functional overreaching
Control
Δ?
PEAKING PERFORMANCE

31. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Post
T1
T2
T3
T4
Occurrence of peak performance
(nb/week)
Control
Acute Fatigue
F-Overreaching
Ø
75% of peak performances within the two first weeks PEAKING PERFORMANCE
Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

33. Age
Height (cm)
Weight (kg)
MAP (W)
VO2max (mLO2/
min/kg)
Weekly training characteristics
Endurance sports experience (years)
Volume (h)
Distribution of intensity in Z1, 2 and 3 (%)
Nb of swim/ cycle/ run sessions
Control
37
183
75
355
58
12
62/30/8
3/3/3
13
Acute Fatigue
33
179
74
354
59
13
65/26/9
3/3/3
15
Functional Overreaching
36
180
73
369
61
14
64/30/7
3/5/3
12
No significant difference between groups at baseline
SUBJECTS &TRAINING CHARACTERISTICS

34. SO LET’S GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER!

35. Oxygen uptake
Ventilatory parameters
Cardiac output
Blood lactate concentration
Plasmatic catecholamines concentration
Arterial blood pressures
PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE
Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

36. * Different from Pre, p < 0.05
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
Control
Acute Fatigue
F - Overreaching
Maximal oxygen uptake (ml/min/kg)
Pre
Post
T2
*
MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE
Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

37. Different from Pre, p < 0.05; † Different from Post, p < 0.05
AN ALTERED CARDIAC RESPONSE
Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

38. AN ALTERED CARDIAC RESPONSE
Different from Pre, p < 0.05; † Different from Post, p < 0.05

39. Different from Pre, p < 0.05 † Different from Post, p < 0.05
CATECHOLAMINES RESPONSE
Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

40. QUESTIONNAIRES
Health monitoring questionnaire (URTI & GI infections symptoms)

41. Hausswirth et al. MSSE 2014
Phase
Baseline
Overload
Taper
TOTAL
Week number
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
CTL
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
AF
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
F-OR
0
1
0
4
0
1
2
0
8
INFECTIONS

42. Hausswirth et al. MSSE 2014
 No significant change in the AF and CTL groups.
F-OR group: decrease in actual sleep duration, immobile time and sleep efficiency;
 These alterations disappeared during the taper phase.
* Different from Pre, p < 0.05
SLEEP

43. Training overload leading to functional overreaching may induce higher risk of training maladaptations, including:
o increased infection risks,
o sleep disturbances,
o symptoms of cardiac fatigue at exercise. CONCLUSION #1

44. CONCLUSION #1
This study showed that:
 greater gains in performance and VO2max occur when the habitual training load increases before the taper…
 peak performance is not necessarily delayed during the taper when heavy training loads are completed immediately prior.
… but not if there is functional overreaching;

45.  Further studies are needed to confirm these findings using longitudinal monitoring of elite athletes.
PERSPECTIVES

46. Inigo MUJIKA ~100 international publications 5 books World-recognized expert on training periodization Past experiences: Athletic Bilbao, Euskatel cycling team, USA Swimming Federation, Spanish Swimming Federation, coach of Eneko Llanos (2nd place, Hawaii Triathlon in 2008)
FOCUS ON A CASE STUDY
Ainhoa MURUA
2nd European Championships in 2012
7th Olympics in London 2012

47. FOCUS ON A CASE STUDY
Mujika et al. IJSPP 2014

48. … but how hard ?

49. HOW DO YOU MANAGE TRAINING LOAD?
Mujika et al. IJSPP 2014
• The content of each training session is determined according to a pre-planned program,
• Each training session is thought in accordance with the actual shape of the athlete,
• I do never program a training session, which I think is impossible for the athlete to complete at this period of the season,
• I anticipate the athlete should perceive the training session, how easy or hard it should be to complete,
• If the session goes well, I continue as planned,
• If the athlete doesn’t succeed to complete the session and feels tired, a morning/afternoon or a full day off is programmed to promote recovery.

50. DO IT SIMPLE… BUT DO IT WELL!
MONITOR PERFORMANCE & QUANTIFY TRAINING LOAD
DEMONSTRATE EMPATHY & ACCEPT TO REGULATE
+
CONCLUSION #2

51. TRAINING LOAD (% habitual load)
100%
60%
130%
Control group (n = 8)
Pre
Phase III (3 weeks)
Phase II
(1 week)
Phase I (3 weeks)
Post
100%
60%
130%
Overload training group
(n = 16)
Post
Pre
OTHER MARKERS TO DIAGNOSE EXCESSIVE FATIGUE?
Overloading
Phase I (3 weeks)
Phase II
(1week)
Phase III (3 weeks)
Le Meur et al. JAP 2013
Phase II (1 week)
Phase II
(1 week)
T1
T1

52. Psychological parameters
Physiological parameters
Cognitive performance
Kinetic & Kinematic parameters
Le Meur et al. JAP 2013
Measured parameters at exercise

53. Measured parameters
Le Meur et al. JAP 2013

54. -4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Discriminant Function 2
Discriminant Function1 BENEFITS OF A MULTIFACTORIAL ANALYSIS
Le Meur et al. JAP 2013
Control group
Overreached group
↘ HR at submax intensities
↘ HRmax
↘ [lactate] at submax intensities
↘ Peak [lactate]
↗ RPE at submax intensities

55. HEART RATE AT EXERCISE
Le Meur et al. MSSE 2013
HR monitoring may help to diagnose functional overreaching

56. > 3 weeks
performance baseline
…
> One month
performance baseline
Matos et al. MSSE 2011
TRAINING LOAD IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR OF STRESS

57. Matos et al. MSSE 2011 OTHER MARKERS TO DIAGNOSE EXCESSIVE FATIGUE?

58. Matos et al. MSSE 2011
OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINING MALADAPTATIONS

59. Matos et al. MSSE 2011
OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINING MALADAPTATIONS

60. TAKE HOME MESSAGES
 Overload periods are essential for performance enhancement;
 Tapering is critical for the supercompensation process,
 Training periodisation should be continuoulsy adapted, based on:
o performance responses after a short rest period using regular testing training sessions,
o athletes’ feedback (perceived fatigue, well-being, motivation, etc.).

61. Anaël AUBRY
PhD student
INSEP
Julien LOUIS, PhD
Sport scientist
INSEP
Christophe HAUSSWIRTH, PhD
Head of Research Department
INSEP
Consejo Superior de Deportes

62. @YLMSportScience
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION