Effect of intensified training on cognitive function, psychological state & performance in trained cyclists

Abstract

Athletes often undertake intensified training loads prior to competition with the goal of functionally overreaching for temporary performance enhancement; however, little is known about the impact of this on cognitive function. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of intensified training induced fatigue on cognitive function, psychological state and performance in trained cyclists. Twenty-three trained male cyclists were randomly assigned to an intensified training group or a control group for two-weeks, followed by a two-week taper period. At baseline, one-week, two-weeks and post-taper, participants undertook a series of cognitive, performance, mood and recovery-stress assessments. The training intervention significantly increased training volume, load and strain by 108%, 116% and 151% respectively. Peak and mean power output on a maximal test and time trial significantly decreased by 4.8% and 9.4% following the two-week training intervention compared to baseline, in addition to a 169% change in total mood disturbance and significant disruption to recovery-stress balance. No change in any cognitive measure was observed across the study period. Following a twoweek taper, performance, mood and well-being measures returned to baseline. Two weeks of intensified training resulted in overreaching as identified by performance and psychological measures. Cognitive function was not sensitive to intensified training promoting caution with its use as a measure for the early identification of overreaching. Highlights:. Two-weeks of intensified training significantly increased training volume, load and strain eliciting a state of overreaching in trained male cyclists. . Intensified training caused deteriorations in physical performance but did not influence cognitive measures. . Mood and recovery-stress balance were negatively affected by intensified training but recovered back to baseline following a two-week taper at a reduced training volume. . A two-week taper period following two-weeks of intensified training did not result in improved physiological measures, physical performance parameters or mood above initial baseline values highlighting the need for careful consideration over the purpose, desired outcomes and necessity of intensified training on an individualised basis.

Does overreaching from endurance-based training impair sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Fourteen were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative analysis [ 18 – 25 , 31 – 36 ], reported in Table 1 . Three articles were eligible for the meta-analysis examining the impact of overreaching on objective sleep quality [ 31 , 35 , 36 ] and eight were eligible for the meta-analysis examining the impact of overreaching on subjective sleep quality [ 18 – 22 , 24 , 25 , 32 – 34 ]. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both meta-analyses to account for RCTs vs non-RCTs.…”

“…Thirteen of the included studies (93%) utilised some form of subjective measurement. Subjective sleep quality was inferred from: the RESTQ-Sport (k = 4, 29%) [ 21 , 22 , 24 , 33 ], a 7-point sleep quality log (k = 3, 21%) [ 20 , 31 , 35 ], the Multicomponent Training Distress Scale (k = 2, 14%) [ 23 , 24 ], the Karolinska Sleep Diary (k = 1, 7%) [ 32 ], a 10-point sleep quality log (k = 1, 7%) [ 34 ], a diary of sleep patterns (k = 1, 7%) [ 19 ], a 25-item overtraining questionnaire (k = 1, 7%) [ 18 ], and a subjective complaints form (k = 1, 7%) [ 25 ].…”

“…Following the screening of article abstracts, 144 were eligible for examination via a full-text review. Fourteen were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative analysis [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][31][32][33][34][35][36], reported in Table 1. Three articles were eligible for the meta-analysis examining the impact of overreaching on objective sleep quality [31,35,36] and eight were eligible for the meta-analysis examining the impact of overreaching on subjective sleep quality [18-22, 24, 25, 32-34].…”

“…Of the thirteen studies that measured subjective sleep quality, only three included a control group i.e. normal training [31][32][33]. Achten et al (2004) [19] implemented a crossover design with an overreaching protocol during both arms and, as a result, was reviewed as a before and after trial for this review.…”

“…As a consequence, there is a high risk of the subjective outcome being influenced by knowledge of the intervention received. Regarding the RCTs within this review [31][32][33], none of them provided information regarding the randomisation of the allocation sequence or concealment of this process. Confounding bias was also a problem in the non-RCTs as none of the studies used an appropriate design or analysis method to account for time-varying confounders [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][34][35][36].…”