The response to an exercise intervention is often described in general terms, with the assumption that the group average represents a typical response for most individuals. In reality, however, it is more common for individuals to show a wide range of responses to an intervention rather than a similar response. This phenomenon of 'high responders' and 'low responders' following a standardized training intervention may provide helpful insights into mechanisms of training adaptation and methods of training prescription. Therefore, the aim of this review was to discuss factors associated with inter-individual variation in response to standardized, endurance-type training. It is well-known that genetic influences make an important contribution to individual variation in certain training responses. The association between genotype and training response has often been supported using heritability estimates; however, recent studies have been able to link variation in some training responses to specific single nucleotide polymorphisms. It would appear that hereditary influences are often expressed through hereditary influences on the pre-training phenotype, with some parameters showing a hereditary influence in the pre-training phenotype but not in the subsequent training response. In most cases, the pre-training phenotype appears to predict only a small amount of variation in the subsequent training response of that phenotype. However, the relationship between pre-training autonomic activity and subsequent maximal oxygen uptake response appears to show relatively stronger predictive potential. Individual variation in response to standardized training that cannot be explained by genetic influences may be related to the characteristics of the training program or lifestyle factors. Although standardized programs usually involve training prescribed by relative intensity and duration, some methods of relative exercise intensity prescription may be more successful in creating an equivalent homeostatic stress between individuals than other methods. Individual variation in the homeostatic stress associated with each training session would result in individuals experiencing a different exercise 'stimulus' and contribute to individual variation in the adaptive responses incurred over the course of the training program. Furthermore, recovery between the sessions of a standardized training program may vary amongst individuals due to factors such as training status, sleep, psychological stress, and habitual physical activity. If there is an imbalance between overall stress and recovery, some individuals may develop fatigue and even maladaptation, contributing to variation in pre-post training responses. There is some evidence that training response can be modulated by the timing and composition of dietary intake, and hence nutritional factors could also potentially contribute to individual variation in training responses. Finally, a certain amount of individual variation in responses may also be attributed to measurement error, a fa...

Exercise prescribed according to relative intensity is a routine feature in the exercise science literature and is intended to produce an approximately equivalent exercise stress in individuals with different absolute exercise capacities. The traditional approach has been to prescribe exercise intensity as a percentage of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) or maximum heart rate (HRmax) and these methods remain common in the literature. However, exercise intensity prescribed at a %VO2max or %HRmax does not necessarily place individuals at an equivalent intensity above resting levels. Furthermore, some individuals may be above and others below metabolic thresholds such as the aerobic threshold (AerT) or anaerobic threshold (AnT) at the same %VO2max or %HRmax. For these reasons, some authors have recommended that exercise intensity be prescribed relative to oxygen consumption reserve (VO2R), heart rate reserve (HRR), the AerT, or the AnT rather than relative to VO2max or HRmax. The aim of this review was to compare the physiological and practical implications of using each of these methods of relative exercise intensity prescription for research trials or training sessions. It is well established that an exercise bout at a fixed %VO2max or %HRmax may produce interindividual variation in blood lactate accumulation and a similar effect has been shown when relating exercise intensity to VO2R or HRR. Although individual variation in other markers of metabolic stress have seldom been reported, it is assumed that these responses would be similarly heterogeneous at a %VO2max, %HRmax, %VO2R, or %HRR of moderate-to-high intensity. In contrast, exercise prescribed relative to the AerT or AnT would be expected to produce less individual variation in metabolic responses and less individual variation in time to exhaustion at a constant exercise intensity. Furthermore, it would be expected that training prescribed relative to the AerT or AnT would provide a more homogenous training stimulus than training prescribed as a %VO2max. However, many of these theoretical advantages of threshold-related exercise prescription have yet to be directly demonstrated. On a practical level, the use of threshold-related exercise prescription has distinct disadvantages compared to the use of %VO2max or %HRmax. Thresholds determined from single incremental tests cannot be assumed to be accurate in all individuals without verification trials. Verification trials would involve two or three additional laboratory visits and would add considerably to the testing burden on both the participant and researcher. Threshold determination and verification would also involve blood lactate sampling, which is aversive to some participants and has a number of intrinsic and extrinsic sources of variation. Threshold measurements also tend to show higher day-to-day variation than VO2max or HRmax. In summary, each method of prescribing relative exercise intensity has both advantages and disadvantages when both theoretical and practical considerations are taken into accoun...

Heart-rate recovery (HRR) can be defined as the rate at which heart rate declines, usually within minutes after the cessation of physical exercise. [1][2][3] The autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulates both the initial increase in heart rate after the start of physical activity and the decrease in heart rate immediately after physical activity ends. The ANS is composed of a parasympathetic and a sympathetic branch that operate in a reciprocal and inverse manner: An increase in heart rate is caused by an increase in sympathetic activity combined with decreased parasympathetic drive, whereas HRR is characterized by parasympathetic reactivation and sympathetic withdrawal. [3][4][5][6][7] Cardiac output is adjusted during exercise based on the metabolic demand. The regulation occurs by intrinsic autoregulation of cardiac pumping (the so-called Frank-Starling law of the heart) and by sympathetic activation and parasympathetic deactivation, which increases heart rate and the contraction force of mainly the left ventricle. 8 Increased sympathetic activity combined with parasympathetic withdrawal (eg, during exercise) leads to reduced skin blood flow and increased blood flow to the muscles. 9 When the exercise stops, cardiac output is reduced by intrinsic autoregulation (by the ANS), more specifically by parasympathetic nervous system reactivation and inhibition of sympathetic impulses.Although it is well documented that changes in HRR coincide well with changes in training status in patient populations, 10 to our knowledge a systematic review on the use of HRR in athletes is missing. HRR may be an indicator of fitness, which is currently generally expressed in terms of VO 2max or VO 2peak , the maximum oxygen uptake during exhaustive exercise. Although VO 2max has a strong relationship with training status in a general population, it loses its predictive value for aerobic performance in already well-trained and elite athletes. 2 In addition, the typical error of measurement of VO 2max is relatively high, which makes VO 2max unreliable to monitor training changes over time. 2 In contrast, parameters such as HRR, peak power output, and/or peak treadmill running speed have lower typical errors of measurements, which makes them more sensitive to detect changes in training status.Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the use of HRR in athletes to track long-term changes in training status. Methods Data SourcesAn electronic literature search was performed in the digital databases of Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. The search terms used were a combination of heart/pulse rate(s), recovery/deceleration, (physical) exercise, and health(y) subjects/population. This search yielded 90 scientific articles (see Figure 1). Heart-rate recovery (HRR) has been proposed as a marker of autonomic function and training status in athletes. The authors performed a systematic review of studies that examined HRR after training. Five cross-sectional studies and 8 studies investigating changes over time (longitudinal)...

Determining the optimal balance between training load and recovery contributes to peak performance in well-trained athletes. The measurement of heart rate recovery (HRR) to monitor this balance has become popular. However, it is not known whether the impairment in performance, which is associated with training-induced fatigue, is accompanied by a change in HRR. Therefore, the aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the relationship between changes in HRR and cycling performance in a group of well-trained cyclists (n=14) who participated in a 4-week high-intensity training (HIT) program. Subjects were assigned to either a group that continuous had a increase in HRR (G(Incr)) or a group that showed a decrease in HRR (G(Decr)) during the HIT period. Both groups, G(Incr) and G(Decr), showed improvements in the relative peak power output (P=0.001 and 0.016, respectively) and endurance performance parameters (P=0.001 and <0.048, respectively). The average power during the 40-km time trial (40-km TT), however, improved more in G(Incr) (P=0.010), resulting in a tendency for a faster 40-km TT time (P=0.059). These findings suggest that HRR has the potential to monitor changes in endurance performance and contribute to a more accurate prescription of training load in well-trained and elite cyclists.

Daily training prescription based on HRV could result in a better performance enhancement than a traditional periodization in well-trained cyclists.

The LSCT is a reliable novel test which is able to predict peak and endurance cycling performance from submaximal power, RPE and HRR in well-trained cyclists. As these parameters are able to detect meaningful changes more accurately than VO(2max), the LSCT has the potential to monitor cycling performance with more precision than other current existing submaximal cycle protocols.

Increased familiarity of the exercise bout and certainty about its endpoint are associated with a more aggressive RPE strategy that produces a superior exercise performance. Certainty about the endpoint and the duration of exercise affect both the RPE strategy and performance.

This suggests that endurance performance is not only "limited" by mechanical failure of the exercising muscles ("peripheral fatigue"). Rather performance during prolonged endurance exercise under normal conditions is highly regulated by the central nervous system to ensure that whole-body homeostasis is protected and an emergency reserve is always present.