To date, little is known about overreaching (OR) and the overtraining syndrome (OTS) in strength sports and resistance training (RT) populations. However, the available literature may elucidate the occurrence of both conditions in these populations. A scoping review was conducted. SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science were searched in a robust and systematic manner, with relevant articles analysed. 1,170 records were retrieved during an initial search, with a total of 47 included in the review. Two broad themes were identified during data extraction: 1) overreaching in strength sports; 2) overreaching and overtraining syndrome in RT. Short-term periods of OR achieved with either high-volume or high-intensity RT can elicit functional OR (FOR) but there is also evidence that chronic high-volume and/or intensity RT can lead to nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR). There is minimal evidence to suggest that true OTS has occurred in strength sports or RT based on the studies entered during this review. More research is needed to develop robust guiding principles for practitioners.Additionally, due to the heterogeneous nature of the existing literature, future research would benefit from the development of practical tools to identify and diagnose the transition from FOR to NFOR, and subsequently OTS in strength athletes and RT populations.

Deloading refers to a purposeful reduction in training demand with the intention of enhancing preparedness for successive training cycles. Whilst deloading is a common training practice in strength and physique sports, little is known about how the necessary reduction in training demand should be accomplished. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine current deloading practices in competitive strength and physique sports. Eighteen strength and physique coaches from a range of sports (weightlifting, powerlifting, and bodybuilding) participated in semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences of deloading. The mean duration of coaching experience at ≥ national standard was 10.9 (SD = 3.9) years. Qualitative content analysis identified Three categories: definitions, rationale, and application. Participants conceptualised deloading as a periodic, intentional cycle of reduced training demand designed to facilitate fatigue management, improve recovery, and assist in overall training progression and readiness. There was no single method of deloading; instead, a reduction in training volume (achieved through a reduction in repetitions per set and number of sets per training session) and intensity of effort (increased proximity to failure and/or reduction in relative load) were the most adapted training variables, along with alterations in exercise selection and configuration. Deloading was typically prescribed for a duration of 5 to 7 days and programmed every 4 to 6 weeks, although periodicity was highly variable. Additional findings highlight the underrepresentation of deloading in the published literature, including a lack of a clear operational definition.

Purpose: To provide details on the nature and symptomatic profile of training maladaptation in competitive resistance-based athletes to examine whether there are symptoms that may be used as prognostic indicators of overtraining. Identifying prognostic tools to assess for training maladaptation is essential for avoiding severe overtraining conditions. Methods: A Web-based survey was distributed to a cross-sectional convenience sample of competitive athletes involved in sports with a significant resistance-training component. The 46-item anonymous survey was distributed via industry experts and social media from July to August 2019. Results: The final sample included 605 responses (completion rate: 84%). About 71% of the respondents indicated that they had previously experienced an unexplained decrease in performance. Among those, the majority reported a performance decrement lasting 1 wk to 1 mo (43.8%). General feelings of fatigue were the most frequent self-reported symptom of maladaptation. Acute training maladaptation, lasting <1 mo, was also accompanied by symptoms of musculoskeletal aches and pain. In the majority of cases (92.5%), training maladaptation was accompanied by additional nontraining stressors. A greater proportion of the respondents with more severe maladaptation (>4 mo) were training to muscle failure. Conclusion: The results from this study support the multifactorial nature of training maladaptation. The multidimensional nature of fatigue and individual variability in symptomatic responses precludes definitive prognostic symptoms or differential diagnostic factors of functional/nonfunctional overreaching or the overtraining syndrome in resistance exercise.

Optimal physical performance is achieved through the careful manipulation of training and recovery. Short-term increases in training demand can induce functional overreaching (FOR) that can lead to improved physical capabilities, whereas nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR) or the overtraining syndrome (OTS) occur when high training-demand is applied for extensive periods with limited recovery. To date, little is known about the OTS in strength sports, particularly from the perspective of the strength sport coach. Fourteen high-performance strength sport coaches from a range of strength sports (weightlifting; n = 5, powerlifting; n = 4, sprinting; n = 2, throws; n = 2, jumps; n = 1) participated in semistructured interviews (mean duration 57; SD = 10 min) to discuss their experiences of the OTS. Reflexive thematic analysis resulted in the identification of four higher order themes: definitions, symptoms, recovery and experiences and observations. Additional subthemes were created to facilitate organisation and presentation of data, and to aid both cohesiveness of reporting and publicising of results. Participants provided varied and sometimes dichotomous perceptions of the OTS and proposed a multifactorial profile of diagnostic symptoms. Prevalence of OTS within strength sports was considered low, with the majority of participants not observing or experiencing long-term reductions in performance with their athletes.

Functional overreaching (FOR) occurs when athletes experience improved athletic capabilities in the days and weeks following short-term periods of increased training demand. However, prolonged high training demand with insufficient recovery may also lead to non-functional overreaching (NFOR) or the overtraining syndrome (OTS). The aim of this research was to explore strength coaches' perceptions and experiences of planned overreaching (POR); short-term periods of increased training demand designed to improve athletic performance. Fourteen high-performance strength coaches (weightlifting; n = 5, powerlifting; n = 4, sprinting; n = 2, throws; n = 2, jumps; n = 1) participated in semistructured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis identified 3 themes: creating enough challenge, training prescription, and questioning the risk to reward. POR was implemented for a 7 to 14 day training cycle and facilitated through increased daily/weekly training volume and/or training intensity. Participants implemented POR in the weeks (~5–8 weeks) preceding competition to allow sufficient time for performance restoration and improvement to occur. Short-term decreased performance capacity, both during and in the days to weeks following training, was an anticipated by-product of POR, and at times used as a benchmark to confirm that training demand was sufficiently challenging. Some participants chose not to implement POR due to a lack of knowledge, confidence, and/or perceived increased risk of athlete training maladaptation. Additionally, this research highlights the potential dichotomy between POR protocols used by strength coaches to enhance athletic performance and those used for the purpose of inducing training maladaptation for diagnostic identification.