Readiness to
Train
Introduction
It is essential that
fatigue is managed effectively by both the sports scientist and the athlete in
order to optimize training adaptations and subsequent performance. Since
performance and training will be compromised during periods of fatigue, it is
crucial to determine an athlete’s readiness to train prior to starting a
workout. At present there are no tools which can 100% tell you whether an
athlete is ready to train, but a combination of subjective and objective
variables can provide the best guide. Following a brief review of the current
literature, outlined below are some of the current practical recommendations
that can be applied, and I have also summarized some laboratory based tests
that might only be available to elite athletes.
Fatigue Management
I came across what
seems to be an endless list of tests and assessments that can be administered
to athletes. My focus however will be on a small number of methods which seem
to be deemed the most reliable, and will briefly touch on some of the other
approaches currently used. Four main markers have been proposed to quantify
training load, these are Biochemical, Psychological, Physiological, and
Hormonal. Though there may be no optimal marker to differentiate between normal
fatigue and over-training, a combination of the above markers, including
performance tests and measures of mood will provide useful information to the
coach and athlete.
1.
Profile of Mood States (POMS)
There is a general agreement that observing mood state changes is
considered one of the most sensitive methods of monitoring training to avoid
overtraining syndrome. The POMS is a questionnaire that is usually completed
pre-workout by the athlete. POMS contains 65 questions, however a shortened
POMS questionnaire has also been developed that is more practical and less time
consuming. The athlete rates themselves against the following 6 questions:
- I slept well last night
- I am looking forward to today's workout
- I am optimistic about my future performance
- I feel vigorous and energetic
- My appetite is great
- I have little muscle soreness
And they rate each statement on the
following range:
- 1 - Strongly disagree
- 2 - Disagree
- 3 - Neutral
- 4 - Agree
- 5 - Strongly agree
If they score 20 or above then it is deemed
that they are recovered enough to continue with the training program. Any score
below 20 will require further investigation, and rest or scaling back of the
training load could be necessary.
2.
Training Load
It is very important that the sports
scientist is able to quantify the training load, high training loads are often
associated with signs of overreaching, which may lead to the development of
overtraining syndrome. Several approaches have been proposed to quantify
training load, thus ensuring that adequate recovery strategies can be applied
at appropriate times. First is the observational approach, this involves
analysis of real time measurements such as the type and duration of a training
session. Modern technology such as GPS can also help to quantify total distance
covered as well as the speeds at which the athlete is running at. Here is a
link to sports GPS manufacturer GPSPORTS http://gpsports.com/gpsnew/home.php
The second is a physiological approach, this
requires monitoring and analysis of variables such as heart rate and lactate
concentration during training. Measurement of lactate can provide an indication
of training load but variations in muscle glycogen can affect lactate
concentration, so conditions would require standardization for repeatable
measures. Thirdly, a useful
yet simple method of assessing training load is to have the athlete complete a
daily training log and record subjective ratings such as session RPE, fatigue,
stress, and muscle soreness.
3.
Performance Tests
A decrease in muscular power and
deteriorating neuromuscular function are found in athletes who are in an
overreached state or are suffering from overtraining syndrome. Recent studies
suggest that low-frequency neuromuscular fatigue is an important measure to
quantify in elite level athletes, and measurement of functional
stretch-shortening cycle activities, such as a countermovement jump (CMJ) may
be capable of this. Tests have been carried out from a single CMJ to 5
consecutive CMJ’s with measurements such as flight time and height jumped being
used to analyse performance. These tests can be carried out with the use of a
portable jump mat which provides real time feedback to the coach and athlete,
an example of which can be seen from this link http://biometricsmotion.intoto.nu/produkten.php?ms_id=214&Instrumenten/Sprongkracht/ProJump_springmat&taal_ID=GB
A common problem encountered when taking
these measurements was a lack of baseline measures. Other performance tests
commonly used were a 10 step bound for distance test, this test is used as a
measure of explosive strength capacity.
4.
Body Mass and Hydration
It is important
to weigh the athlete both pre and post-workout, for every kg that the athlete
loses during training this equates to 1 litre of fluid losses. When replacing
these fluid losses it is important that the athlete consumes 1.5 times what was
lost. So if the athlete loses 1 litre of sweat then they should consume 1.5
litres of water. It can be useful to add sodium to the mix as this will force
the kidneys to retain the water and ensure that it doesn’t get excreted.
Athletes can tolerate water losses of up to 2-3% of bodyweight before
performance will be affected, however it is important that they do not commence
training in an already dehydrated state. Simple tests such as checking the
colour of the athletes urine against a urine colour chart such as the one below,
will give an accurate indication of the athletes hydration status.
For a long time
the plasma cortisol/testosterone ratio was considered to be a good indicator of
the overreached state. Cortisol and testosterone can be measured in the saliva,
which provides the possibility for regular, non-invasive monitoring of hormonal
status in response to training. This ratio decreases in relation to the
intensity and duration of training, but current literature questions its
accuracy in its use of diagnosis for overreaching and overtraining.
Conclusion
As athletes
endeavour to improve performance, they will predictably experience varying
levels of fatigue, which will require effective management by both the sports
scientist and the athlete. Although there are currently no tools available that
can be 100% accurate in diagnosing overtraining, there are several methods,
both objective and subjective, that can indicate changes in training related
stress. With an effective method for the management and monitoring of fatigue,
athletes should be able to optimize training adaptations which should enhance
performance.