Recovery and Performance in Sport: Consensus Statement

Abstract

The relationship between recovery and fatigue and its impact on performance has attracted the interest of sport science for many years. An adequate balance between stress (training and competition load, other life demands) and recovery is essential for athletes to achieve continuous high-level performance. Research has focused on the examination of physiological and psychological recovery strategies to compensate external and internal training and competition loads. A systematic monitoring of recovery and the subsequent implementation of recovery routines aims at maximizing performance and preventing negative developments such as underrecovery, nonfunctional overreaching, the overtraining syndrome, injuries, or illnesses. Due to the inter- and intraindividual variability of responses to training, competition, and recovery strategies, a diverse set of expertise is required to address the multifaceted phenomena of recovery, performance, and their interactions to transfer knowledge from sport science to sport practice. For this purpose, a symposium on Recovery and Performance was organized at the Technical University Munich Science and Study Center Raitenhaslach (Germany) in September 2016. Various international experts from many disciplines and research areas gathered to discuss and share their knowledge of recovery for performance enhancement in a variety of settings. The results of this meeting are outlined in this consensus statement that provides central definitions, theoretical frameworks, and practical implications as a synopsis of the current knowledge of recovery and performance. While our understanding of the complex relationship between recovery and performance has significantly increased through research, some important issues for future investigations are also elaborated.

Test–retest reliability of physical fitness tests among young athletes: The FITescola® battery

“…Young athletes present a particular variability in their physiologic, anthropometric characteristics (e.g., weight), and highest physical fitness levels when compared to non‐athletes (Armstrong & McManus, 2011; McManus & Armstrong, 2011; Smoll & Schutz, 1985). In addition, athletes are more susceptible to greater fluctuations in their fitness performance due to their higher training loads and periodization in their fitness levels based on their competition season compared to their non‐athletic peers (Kellmann et al, 2018). Thus, although good reliability has been reported for the tests that comprise the FITescola ® battery in the general population of youth (Ortega, Ruiz, et al, 2008), the reliability of these tests in athletic youth may vary given these physiologic and fitness fluctuation differences commonly seen in athletes versus.…”

“…Young athletes present a particular variability in their physiologic, anthropometric characteristics (e.g., weight), and highest physical fitness levels when compared to non-athletes Smoll & Schutz, 1985). In addition, athletes are more susceptible to greater fluctuations in their fitness performance due to their higher training loads and periodization in their fitness levels based on their competition season compared to their non-athletic peers (Kellmann et al, 2018).…”

Finding Your Balance

“…Introducing monitoring systems within dance training will allow dancers to understand their individual response to training and identify their personal recovery needs. Monitoring routines are used successfully in elite-level sport to maintain and enhance recovery (Kellmann et al 2018), and the introduction of similar practices in dance training environments might prove beneficial for dancers.…”

“…Attempts to understand recovery-stress dynamics have been further complicated through the interchangeable use of terms such as overtraining, overreaching, staleness, underperformance, underrecovery, and burnout in the literature (Richardson, Andersen, and Morris 2008). However, recent consensus statements regarding overtraining syndrome (Meeusen et al 2013) and recovery and performance in sport (Kellmann et al 2018) have greatly assisted in the following conceptualization. Overtraining describes a process whereby an accumulation of intense training or nontraining stress results in the possible outcomes of functional overreaching (positive adaptation), nonfunctional overreaching (negative adaptation), or overtraining syndrome (a maladaptive outcome that could be caused by training or nontraining factors) (Meeusen et al 2013;Kellmann et al 2018).…”

“…However, recent consensus statements regarding overtraining syndrome (Meeusen et al 2013) and recovery and performance in sport (Kellmann et al 2018) have greatly assisted in the following conceptualization. Overtraining describes a process whereby an accumulation of intense training or nontraining stress results in the possible outcomes of functional overreaching (positive adaptation), nonfunctional overreaching (negative adaptation), or overtraining syndrome (a maladaptive outcome that could be caused by training or nontraining factors) (Meeusen et al 2013;Kellmann et al 2018). Further, Sean Richardson and colleagues (2008) contended that investigation of early precursors of overtraining such as recovery-stress imbalance and underrecovery allows for examination of "effective and ineffective training and recovery processes and behaviors in the context of the stress-recovery balance" (12).…”