Recovery can be defined as “regaining what was lost” – for the coach and athlete this is not very satisfying, as it returns the athlete only to where they started. Adaptation can be defined as “the process of adjustment to a specific stimulus.” This process of adaptation can include adjustment in physiology, psychology and mechanics, which ultimately lead to improved performance – a much more satisfying, prospect. So, in a sports context, recovery-adaptation becomes paramount. TRAINING- THEORETICAL MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESS-- OR FAILURE As previously mentioned, the training process is concerned with preventing overstress-overtraining while enhancing performance. There are several hypothetical/theoretical mechanisms, which can help us understand the training process: Stimulus-Fatigue-Recovery-Adaptation (SFRA): Conceptually an appropriate stimulus will result in fatigue, recovery and adaptation such that performance is eventually improved (i.e., supercompensation)(Figure 1).
Fitness vs. Fatigue
A second model is Sports Preparedness. The charateristic of sports preparedness deals with the degree to which an athlete is ready to perform. Although a high level of “preparedness” does not guarantee a superior performance, it does raise the performance potential. According to this theory (Zatsiorsky, 1995), an athlete’s preparedness can be determined by the summation of two after-effects of training: fatigue and fitness (Figure 3).
Basically, this theory indicates that fatigue dissipates at a faster rate than fitness, thus enhancing preparedness. In contrast to the SFRA theory, which is based on a cause-and-effect relationship between these factors, the fitness-fatigue model proposes that they have opposing effects. This has a simple but profound implication for program design and implementation: Preparedness, which is strongly related to performance, can be optimized with strategies that maximize the fitness responses to training stimuli while minimizing fatigue. So, if preparedness is enhanced, performance should also be enhanced – evidence for these relationhips can be found in the positve performance effects of a “taper” (Mujika and Padilla, 2003).
TRAINING STRATEGY Fatigue is a natural consequence of training stress (especially with high volume-loads) — and adaptations are primarily manifested during subsequent unloading periods — fatigue management is key in producing a sound program. These unloading periods can be implemented at different levels in a periodized program (Stone et al.,1999a, 1999b, Plisk and Stone, 2003) for example:
There are several levels of potential variation in the training program. Variation has clearly been shown to be a key factor in recovery-adaptation (Foster et al., 1998, Stone et al., 2000). As part of this variation, introduction of unloading periods (i.e. rest-recovery periods) into the training program structure can reduce the overstress/overtraining potential and enhance the recovery-adaptation process ultimately enhancing performance. Unloading periods: Estimating the work-load Work (force X displacement) is directly related to the energy used during exercise and is also related to the energy consumed during recovery. So, the more work performed in a training session the greater the potential for extended recovery periods. The inability to recover not only effects adaptation, but also affects the athlete’s ability to respond to the next training session. In order to implement appropriate unloading periods it is necessary for the coach to develop an understanding of the measurement or a reasonable estimate of work for their specific sport. This is relatively easy in weight-training as the volume load (repetitions X mass lifted) is associated with recovery energy (Scala et al., 1987). Thus, calculating the volume load per session can give a qualitative indication of how long it will take to recover. However, in other sports activities estimates can also be derived from specific exercise characteristics – for example in sprinting, work may be estimated using a combination of distance run and times achieved (Kirksey and Stone, 1998). Developing estimates of work for various sports is a key factor in being able to appropriately vary exercise and unloading periods (i.e., if you don’t know what a heavy work load is – then you cannot implement a light one). Monitoring the Training Process One of the most important aspects in considering training-recovery-adaptation is monitoring the process. Failure to properly monitor results in the coach never really knowing if his or her training plan produced the desired results. A positive or negative performance result may have been due to outside factors (including chance) rather than good planning. Monitoring the training process should include the development of tests, which reflect sports specific fitness and preparedness. These tests should be:
Verkhoshansky Y.V. Fundamentals Of Special Strength-Training In Sport. Moscow: Fizkultura i Spovt, 1977; Livonia MI: Sportivny Press, 1986 [translated by A. Charniga, Jr.].
Verkhoshansky Y.V. Programming & Organization Of Training. Moscow: Fizkultura i Spovt, 1985; Livonia Sportivny Press, 1988 [translated by A. Charniga, Jr.].Zatsiorsky V.M. Science & Practice Of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.