The Quantification of Training Load, the Training Response and the Effect on Performance

Abstract

Historically, the ability of coaches to prescribe training to achieve optimal athletic performance can be attributed to many years of personal experience. A more modern approach is to adopt scientific methods in the development of optimal training programmes. However, there is not much research in this area, particularly into the quantification of training programmes and their effects on physiological adaptation and subsequent performance. Several methods have been used to quantify training load, including questionnaires, diaries, physiological monitoring and direct observation. More recently, indices of training stress have been proposed, including the training impulse, which uses heart rate measurements and training load, and session rating of perceived exertion measurements, which utilizes subjective perception of effort scores and duration of exercise. Although physiological adaptations to training are well documented, their influence on performance has not been accurately quantified. To date, no single physiological marker has been identified that can measure the fitness and fatigue responses to exercise or accurately predict performance. Models attempting to quantify the relationship between training and performance have been proposed, many of which consider the athlete as a system in which the training load is the input and performance the system output. Although attractive in concept, the accuracy of these theoretical models has proven poor. A possible reason may be the absence of a measure of individuality in each athlete's response to training. Thus, in the future more attention should be directed towards measurements that reflect individual capacity to respond or adapt to exercise training rather than an absolute measure of changes in physiological variables that occur with training.

Heart rate variability is related to training load variables in interval running exercises

“…This means that when the homeostasis of cells, tissues, and organs are appropriately, that is more than they are used to, disturbed and overloaded, training adaptations occur and enable the body to function more efficiently. Physical exercise or training may be interpreted as a stimulus that causes this disturbance of homeostasis, which should be restored during recovery after a given training session (Borresen & Lambert, 2009). This leads to supercompensation, which is improved resistance to stress, and to improved performance if sufficient recovery after exercise is accomplished.…”

“…However, in many cases the approach of unsystematic increases in training intensity, duration, and/or frequency might increase the likelihood for injury and symptoms of overreaching or overtraining (Borresen & Lambert, 2009), which can be detected in the function of the ANS (Hynynen et al 2006;Uusitalo, 2001). In order to produce optimal adaptations, physical TL and recovery must be balanced so that neither under-nor overtraining exists.…”

“…catecholamines), substrate concentrations (glucose, glycogen and lactate), personality traits, ventilation rate, neurotransmitter levels, and psychological states. These factors limit the use of RPE in an accurate quantification of exercise intensity (Borresen & Lambert, 2009). Foster et al (1998) introduced the use of session RPE in order to quantify TL.…”

“…The advantages of questionnaires and diaries are easy administration, cost effectiveness, and the fact that they do not disturb training. However, 24 % of athletes have been reported to overestimate and 17 % to underestimate the duration of their training (Borresen & Lambert, 2009;Hopkins, 1991), so the accuracy of this method in TL analysis is quite poor.…”

“…The interindividual variance might be explained by several factors, such as age, sex, training history, psychological factors, initial training status, recovery potential, exercise capacity, non-training stress factors, stress tolerance, and genetics (Borresen & Lambert, 2009). For instance, a mean increase of 25 % in endurance performance during a standardized training program hides the fact that some individuals may have improved 50 % or even more, whereas others may not improve at all.…”