Successful training must involve overload, but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short-term performance decrement, without severe psychological, or lasting other negative symptoms. This Functional Overreaching (FOR) will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, Non-Functional Overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and the Overtraining Syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be 'prolonged maladaptation' not only of the athlete, but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirmor refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the aetiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, etc., together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this paper, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meets all criteria to make its use generally accepted.

Successful training must involve overload but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short term performance decrement, without severe psychological, or lasting other negative symptoms. This Functional Overreaching (FOR) will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, Non-Functional Overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and the Overtraining Syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be 'prolonged maladaptation' not only of the athlete, but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline, and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirm or refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the aetiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, etc. together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this paper we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meets all criteria to make its use generally accepted. We propose a ''check list'' that might help the physicians and sport scientists to decide on the diagnosis of OTS and to exclude other possible causes of underperformance.

Purpose:The aim of this systematic literature review was to outline the various preexperimental maximal cycle-test protocols, terminology, and performance indicators currently used to classify subject groups in sportscience research and to construct a classification system for cycling-related research.Methods:A database of 130 subject-group descriptions contains information on preexperimental maximal cycle-protocol designs, terminology of the subject groups, biometrical and physiological data, cycling experience, and parameters. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, 1-way ANOVA, post hoc Bonferroni (P < .05), and trend lines were calculated on height, body mass, relative and absolute maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), and peak power output (PPO).Results:During preexperimental testing, an initial workload of 100 W and a workload increase of 25 W are most frequently used. Three-minute stages provide the most reliable and valid measures of endurance performance. After obtaining data on a subject group, researchers apply various terms to define the group. To solve this complexity, the authors introduced the neutral term performance levels 1 to 5, representing untrained, recreationally trained, trained, well-trained, and professional subject groups, respectively. The most cited parameter in literature to define subject groups is relative VO2max, and therefore no overlap between different performance levels may occur for this principal parameter. Another significant cycling parameter is the absolute PPO. The description of additional physiological information and current and past cycling data is advised.Conclusion:This review clearly shows the need to standardize the procedure for classifying subject groups. Recommendations are formulated concerning preexperimental testing, terminology, and performance indicators.

Successful training not only must involve overload but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short-term performance decrement without severe psychological or lasting other negative symptoms. This functional overreaching will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and overtraining syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal, and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be "prolonged maladaptation" not only of the athlete but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline, and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirm or refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the etiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, and others together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this article, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently, several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, and biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meet all the criteria to make their use generally accepted.

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether severe fatigue, possibly leading to overreaching, could be diagnosed at an early stage by a combination of parameters. Seven well-trained male subjects (age [mean +/- SD]: 25.3 +/- 4.7 yr; body mass: 76 +/- 6.6 kg; VO2max: 61.1 +/- 7 ml.kg(-1).min(-1)) increased their training load by doubling their training volume and increasing the intensity by 15 % over a period of two weeks. Before and after this intensified training period subjects underwent a series of tests including a maximal incremental cycle ergometer test (Wmax) with continuous ventilatory measurements and blood lactate values, time trial, basal blood parameter tests (red and white blood profile), hormones [growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor 1(IGF-1), adreno-corticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol], neuro-endocrine stress test [short insulin tolerance test (SITT), combined anterior pituitary test (CAPT) and exercise], a shortened Profile of Mood State (POMS), the estimated rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and a cognitive reaction time test. The intensified training period resulted in a significant increase of the training load (p <0.01), training monotony (p <0.01) and training strain (p <0.01). The RPE during training increased significantly (p <0.01) during the intensified training period. Total mood score obtained from the POMS tended to increase (p=0.06), reflecting an increase in worse mood state. A novel finding was that reaction times increased significantly, indicating that overreaching might adversely affect speed of information processing by the brain, especially for the most difficult conditions. After the intensified training period, neither changes in exercise-induced plasma hormone values, nor SITT values were observed. During the CAPT only cortisol showed a significant decrease after the intensified training period. Hemoglobin showed a significant decrease after the intensified training period whereas hematocrit, red blood cell count (RBC) and MCV tended to decrease. The intensified training had no effect on physical performance (Wmax or time trial), maximal blood lactate, maximal heart rate and white blood cell profile. The most sensitive parameters for detecting overreaching are reaction time performance (indicative for cognitive brain functioning), RPE and to a lesser extend the shortened POMS. This strongly suggests, that central fatigue precedes peripheral fatigue. All other systems,including the neuro-endocrine, are more robust and react most likely at a later stage in exhaustive training periods.