Optimising the Training Load during the Pre-taper Phase

INSEP

Département de la Recherche – Institut National du Sport, de l’Expertise et de la Performance

OPTIMISING THE TRAINING LOAD DURING THE PRE-TAPER PHASE

Yann LE MEUR1

Collaborators: Julien LOUIS1, Anael AUBRY1, Ludmilla BAUDRILLART1, Jacques GUÉNERON1, Benjamin MAZE², Frank BIGNET², Jean Benoît CORCUFF3,

Stéphane HATEM4, Richard ISNARD4, Aaron COUTTS5, Robert DUFFIELD5 & Christophe HAUSSWIRTH1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

INSEP


INSEP


INSEP


… but how hard ?

INSEP


INSEP


TRAINING RECOVERY

INTRODUCTION

INSEP


THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF FATIGUE

❺ NON FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

❻ OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME

❷ MODERATE FATIGUE

❶ NO FATIGUE

❸ ACUTE FATIGUE

❹ FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

Meeusen et al. MSSE 2013

INSEP



❺ NON FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

❻ OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME


❶ NO FATIGUE

❸ ACUTE FATIGUE

❹ FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING


INSEP



Train hard or go home!

ACUTE FATIGUE

High perceived fatigue

No performance decrement after a 24/36h rest

period,

Performance supercompensation

24/36h

performance baseline

INSEP



Very high perceived fatigue

Short-term performance decrement,

Performance restoration takes from several days

to several weeks,

Performance supercompensation

FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING

Several days to several weeks



INSEP



Very intense perceived fatigue

Short-term decrement in performance capacity (< 1 month),

Performance restoration…

… with no performance supercompensation

NON FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

Several weeks



INSEP



… Very intense perceived fatigue

Long-term performance decrement (> 1 month)

THE OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME

> One month



INSEP


WHICH STRATEGY TO CHOOSE ?

❺ NON FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

❻ OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME



❶ NO FATIGUE

❸ ACUTE FATIGUE

❹ FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

INSEP


❸ ACUTE FATIGUE

❹ FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

❺ NON FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

❻ OVERTRAINING

SYNDROME



❶ NO FATIGUE

WHICH STRATEGY TO CHOOSE ?

INSEP


F-OR: THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY ?

INSEP


OBJECTIVES

1. To examine whether the

development of a functional

overreaching state leads to

greater performance

supercompensation in

comparison to acute fatigue

strategy

?

INSEP


OBJECTIVES

2. To better understand the potential

factors associated with the functional

overreaching development, including:

physiological parameters,

psychological parameters,

behavioral parameters.

INSEP


PROTOCOL

INSEP


TRA

ININ

G L

OA

D (

% h

abit

ual

load

) 100%

60%

130%

Control group (n = 12)

Phase II (1 week)

Phase III (3 weeks) Simulated Taper

(4 weeks)

Pre

Phase I (3 weeks)

Post

T1

T2

T3

T4

STUDY DESIGN

Overloading

100%

60%

130%

Phase I (3 weeks) Phase II

(1 week)

Phase III (3 weeks)

Overload training group

(n = 28)

Simulated Taper (4 weeks)

Post

T1

T2

T3

T4

Pre

Aubry et al. MSSE 2014

INSEP


Pu

issan

ce (

W)

100W

+25W par 2min

EXERCISE TEST

36h rest period before each test

Same day, same hour

Controlled diet during the last 48h

Hydration guidelines

INSEP


ADHERENCE TO THE TRAINING PROTOCOL

7 subjects did not follow the prescribed training due to injury or personal obligations

Control group: n = 10 Overload group: n = 23

INSEP


TRA

ININ

G L

OA

D (

% h

abit

ual

load

)

Overloading

100%

60%

130%

Phase I (3 weeks)

Phase II (1 week)

Phase III (3 weeks)

Overload training group

(n = 23)

Simulated Taper (4 weeks)

Post

T1

T2

T3

T4

Pre

STUDY DESIGN

INSEP


THE OVERLOAD GROUP

• HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE

• PRESERVED & ENHANCED

PERFORMANCE

• VERY HIGH PERCEIVED FATIGUE

• DECREASED PERFORMANCE

ACUTE FATIGUE

n = 12

FUNCTIONAL

OVERREACHING

n = 11

INSEP


THREE GROUPS

Control group n = 12

Overload group n = 28

Control group n = 10

Acute Fatigue n = 12

F-OR group n = 11

2 out

5 out

INSEP


THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND

†††

†††

##

†# ††

†

* vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Pre Post T1 T2 T3 T4 Pe

rfo

rman

ce c

han

ge (

% P

re)

Control

Acute Fatigue

Functional overreaching


INSEP


THE PERFORMANCE REBOUND

* vs. Pre # vs. CTL † vs. F-OR

10 ± 7W 18 ± 8W 9 ± 4W

INSEP


PEAKING OCCURENCE


Acute fatigue

Functional overreaching

Control

∆?

INSEP



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Post T1 T2 T3 T4

Occ

urr

en

ce o

f p

eak

pe

rfo

rman

ce

(n

b/w

ee

k)

Control

Acute Fatigue

F-Overreaching

Ø

75% of peak

performances within

the two first weeks

PEAKING OCCURENCE

INSEP


INSEP


SUBJECTS &TRAINING CHARACTERISTICS

Age Height

(cm)

Weight

(kg)

MAP

(W)

VO2max

(mLO2/

min/kg)

Weekly training characteristics Endurance

sports

experience

(years) Volume

(h)

Distribution

of intensity in

Z1, 2 and 3

(%)

Nb of swim/

cycle/ run

sessions

Control 37 183 75 355 58 12 62/30/8 3/3/3 13

Acute

Fatigue 33 179 74 354 59 13 65/26/9 3/3/3 15

Functional

Overreaching 36 180 73 369 61 14 64/30/7 3/5/3 12

No significant difference between groups at baseline

INSEP


PHASE BASELINE TAPER OVERLOAD TAPER

Duration (week) 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Control

Weekly volume (h/m) 12 ± 3 6 ± 1 12 ± 2 12 ± 2 12 ± 2 6 ± 1 6 ± 1 6 ± 1 6 ± 1

Distribution of training

intensity in zone 1, 2 and 3 (%) 62/30/8 67/26/7 67/26/7 66/26/8 65/27/8 64/28/8 63/28/9 62/28/8 66/26/8

Weekly number of swimming,/

cycling, running sessions 3/3/3 2/3/3 3/3/3 3/3/3 3/3/3 2/3/3 2/3/3 2/3/3 2/3/3

Acute

Fatigue

Weekly volume (h/m) 13 ± 3 7 ± 1 17 ± 3 17 ± 3 17 ± 3 7 ± 1 7 ± 1 7 ± 1 7 ± 1



Weekly number of swimming,


F-OR

Weekly volume (h/m) 14 ± 3 7 ± 1 18 ± 3 19 ± 3 19 ± 3 7 ± 1 7 ± 1 7 ± 1 7 ± 1



Weekly number of swimming,


TRAINING MONITORING

No significant difference between groups in training parameters

INSEP


SO LET’S GO

A LITTLE BIT

FURTHER!

INSEP


PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE DURING EXERCISE

Oxygen uptake

Ventilatory parameters

Cardiac output

Blood lactate

concentration

Plasmatic

catecholamines

concentration

Arterial blood

pressures

INSEP


* Different from Pre, p < 0.05

MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE

4100

4200

4300

4400

4500

4600

4700

Control Acute Fatigue F - Overreaching

Max

imal

oxy

gen

up

take

(m

l/m

in/k

g)

Pre

Post

T2

*

Le Meur et al. JAP 2014

INSEP


Different from Pre, p < 0.05; † Different from Post, p < 0.05

CARDIAC FATIGUE ?


INSEP



CARDIAC FATIGUE ?


INSEP



CATECHOLAMINES RESPONSE


INSEP


QUESTIONNAIRES

Health

monitoring

questionnaire

(URTI & GI

infections

symptoms)

INSEP


INFECTIONS

Hausswirth et al. MSSE 2014

Phase Baseline Overload Taper

TOTAL Week

number I II III IV V VI VII VIII

CTL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

AF 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

F-OR 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 8

INSEP


SLEEP

Hausswirth et al. MSSE 2014

No significant change in the AF

and CTL groups.

F-OR group: decrease in actual

sleep duration, immobile time and

sleep efficiency;

These alterations disappeared

during the taper phase.

* Different from Pre, p < 0.05

INSEP


Training overload leading to functional

overreaching may induce higher risk of training

maladaptations, including:

o increased infection risks,

o sleep disturbances,

o symptoms of cardiac fatigue at exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

INSEP


PERSPECTIVES

Further studies are needed to

confirm these findings (using

ecological performance tests),

Longitudinal monitoring of elite

athletes.

INSEP


TAKE HOME MESSAGES

Overload periods are essential for performance

enhancement;

Tapering is critical for the supercompensation

process,

Training periodisation should be continuoulsy

adapted, based on:

o performance responses after a short rest

period using regular testing training sessions,

o athletes’ feedback.

Date post:	30-May-2015
Category:	Sports
Upload:	yann-le-meur
View:	3,012 times
Download:	1 times

Optimising the Training Load during the Pre-taper Phase

Sports