managing training load for sport performance [le meur madrid 2014]

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

Per week

5x Swimming

7x Cycling

7x Running

2x S&C

By Malcolm Brown

Leeds Metropolitan University

… but how hard ?

TRAINING RECOVERY

COACH

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

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

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

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

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

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

F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

Multistage fitness test

F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY?

1. To examine whether the

development of a functional

overreaching state leads to

greater performance

supercompensation in

comparison to acute fatigue

strategy

?

OBJECTIVES

2. To better understand the potential

factors associated with the functional

overreaching development, including:

the physiological & psychological

responses,

behavioral response,

and health.

OBJECTIVES

PROTOCOL

Phase III

(3 weeks)

TR

AIN

ING

LO

AD

(%

ha

bit

ual lo

ad

)

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

Pu

issan

ce (

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

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

TRA

ININ

G L

OA

D (

% h

abit

ual

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

• HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE

• PRESERVED & ENHANCED

PERFORMANCE

• VERY HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE

• DECREASED PERFORMANCE

ACUTE FATIGUE

n = 12

FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

n = 11

THE OVERLOAD GROUP

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

†††

†††

##

†# ††

†

* vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR

THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Pre Post T1 T2 T3 T4

Perf

orm

an

ce c

han

ge (

% P

re)

Control

Acute Fatigue

Functional overreaching

Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

* vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR

10 ± 7W 18 ± 8W 9 ± 4W

THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND

Train hard or go home!

Acute fatigue

Functional overreaching

Control

∆?

PEAKING PERFORMANCE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Post T1 T2 T3 T4

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e o

f p

ea

k

pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

(n

b/w

ee

k)

Control

Acute Fatigue

F-Overreaching

Ø

75% of peak

performances within

the two first weeks

PEAKING PERFORMANCE

Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

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

SO LET’S GO

A LITTLE BIT

FURTHER!

Oxygen uptake

Ventilatory parameters

Cardiac output

Blood lactate

concentration

Plasmatic

catecholamines

concentration

Arterial blood

pressures

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

* Different from Pre, p < 0.05

4100

4200

4300

4400

4500

4600

4700

Control Acute Fatigue F - Overreaching

Ma

xim

al o

xyg

en

up

tak

e

(ml/

min

/kg

)

Pre

Post

T2

*

MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

Different from Pre, p < 0.05; † Different from Post, p < 0.05

AN ALTERED CARDIAC RESPONSE

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

AN ALTERED CARDIAC RESPONSE

Different from Pre, p < 0.05; † Different from Post, p < 0.05

Different from Pre, p < 0.05

† Different from Post, p < 0.05

CATECHOLAMINES RESPONSE

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

QUESTIONNAIRES

Health

monitoring

questionnaire

(URTI & GI

infections

symptoms)

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

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

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

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;

Further studies are needed to

confirm these findings using

longitudinal monitoring of elite

athletes.

PERSPECTIVES

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

FOCUS ON A CASE STUDY

Mujika et al. IJSPP 2014

… but how hard ?

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.

DO IT

SIMPLE… BUT

DO IT WELL!

MONITOR PERFORMANCE

& QUANTIFY TRAINING LOAD

DEMONSTRATE EMPATHY

& ACCEPT TO REGULATE

+

CONCLUSION #2

TR

AIN

ING

LO

AD

(%

ha

bit

ual lo

ad

)

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

Psychological parameters

Physiological parameters

Cognitive performance

Kinetic & Kinematic parameters

Le Meur et al. JAP 2013

Measured parameters at exercise

Measured parameters

Le Meur et al. JAP 2013

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Dis

cri

min

an

t F

un

cti

on

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

HEART RATE AT EXERCISE

Le Meur et al. MSSE 2013

HR monitoring may help

to diagnose functional

overreaching

> 3 weeks

performance baseline

…

> One month

performance baseline

Matos et al. MSSE 2011

TRAINING LOAD IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR OF STRESS

Matos et al. MSSE 2011

OTHER MARKERS TO DIAGNOSE EXCESSIVE FATIGUE?

Matos et al. MSSE 2011

OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINING

MALADAPTATIONS

Matos et al. MSSE 2011

OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINING

MALADAPTATIONS

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.).

Anaël AUBRY

PhD student

INSEP

Julien LOUIS, PhD

Sport scientist

INSEP

Christophe HAUSSWIRTH, PhD

Head of Research Department

INSEP

Consejo Superior

de Deportes

@YLMSportScience

THANKS FOR YOUR

ATTENTION