Training Progression in Recreational Cyclists: No Linear Dose-Response Relationship With Training Load

Training Load and Acute Performance Decrements Following Different Training Sessions

PURPOSE

To examine the differences in training load (TL) metrics when quantifying training sessions differing in intensity and duration. The relationship between the TL metrics and the acute performance decrement measured immediately after the sessions was also assessed.

METHODS

Eleven male recreational cyclists performed 4 training sessions in a random order, immediately followed by a 3-km time trial (TT). Before this period, participants performed the time TT in order to obtain a baseline performance. The difference in the average power output for the TTs following the training sessions was then expressed relative to the best baseline performance. The training sessions were quantified using 7 different TL metrics, 4 using heart rate as input, 2 using power output, and 1 using the rating of perceived exertion.

RESULTS

The load of the sessions was estimated differently depending on the TL metrics used. Also, within the metrics using the same input (heart rate and power), differences were found. TL using the rating of perceived exertion was the only metric showing a response that was consistent with the acute performance decrements found for the different training sessions. The Training Stress Score and the individualized training impulse demonstrated similar patterns but overexpressed the intensity of the training sessions. The total work done resulted in an overrepresentation of the duration of training.

CONCLUSION

TL metrics provide dissimilar results as to which training sessions have higher loads. The load based on TL using the rating of perceived exertion was the only one in line with the acute performance decrements found in this study.

Effects of Training Loads on Stress Tolerance and Mucosal Immunity in High-Intensity Functional Fitness Athletes

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the effects of training load on stress tolerance (ST) and secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) in male and female high-intensity functional fitness (HIFF) athletes during two different 10 and consecutive weekly training volume loads [higher (week 1) and lower volume (week 2)]. Methods: 14 athletes [7 males: 29.3 (±5.8) years; 86.3 (±8.2) kg and 176.8 (±3.8) cm and 7 females: 32.7 (±4.4) years; 60.0 (±6.7) kg and 162.5 (±5.9) cm] participated. The ST, assessed by Daily Analysis of Life Demand in Athletes questionnaire (DALDA) and Saliva sampling were performed in four time-points (pre (T1) and post (T2) week 1; pre (T3) and post (T4) week 2). Results: Female athletes showed a decrease in ST (symptoms of stress) from 15 T1 to T3 [F_(3,36) = 7.184, p˂ 0.001, ηp² = 0.374], without difference in male athletes (p > .05). There is a significant difference of SIgA concentration [F_(3.36) = 3.551; p = .024; ηp² = 0.228], with a significant decrease in female athletes group in T2 compared to T1 (p = .013) and T4 (p = .023). In addition, the different training volume loads did not impact mucosal immunity in male athletes (p > .05). Conclusion: The current findings suggest that higher HIFF volume results in decreased ST and SIgA concentration in female 20 athletes and a subsequent decrease in training volume loads contributed to restoring these variables.

The Fitness-Fatigue Model: What's in the Numbers?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this commentary is to outline some of the pitfalls when using the fitness-fatigue model to unravel the interaction between training load and performance. By doing so, we encourage sport scientists and coaches to interpret the parameters from the model with some extra caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution is needed when interpreting the fitness-fatigue model since the parameter values are influenced by the starting parameter values, the modeling technique, and the input of the model. Also, the use of general constants should be avoided since they do not account for interindividual differences and differences between training-load methods. Therefore, we advise sport scientists and coaches to use the model as a way to work more data-informed rather than working data-driven.

Training for the HandbikeBattle: an explorative analysis of training load and handcycling physical capacity in recreationally active wheelchair users

PURPOSE

(1) to analyze training characteristics of recreationally active wheelchair users during handcycle training, and (2) to examine the associations between training load and change in physical capacity.

METHODS

Former rehabilitation patients (N = 60) with health conditions such as spinal cord injury or amputation were included. Participants trained for five months. A handcycling/arm crank graded exercise test was performed before and after the training period. Outcomes: peak power output per kg (POpeak/kg) and peak oxygen uptake per kg (VO₂peak/kg). Training load was defined as Training Impulse (TRIMP), which is rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) multiplied by duration of the session, in arbitrary units (AU). Training intensity distribution (TID) was also determined (time in zone 1, RPE ≤4; zone 2, RPE 5-6; zone 3, RPE ≥7).

RESULTS

Multilevel regression analyses showed that TRIMP_sRPE was not significantly associated with change in physical capacity. Time in zone 2 (RPE 5-6) was significantly associated with ΔVO₂peak, %ΔVO₂peak, ΔVO₂peak/kg and %ΔVO₂peak/kg.

CONCLUSION

Training at RPE 5-6 was the only determinant that was significantly associated with improvement in physical capacity. Additional controlled studies are necessary to demonstrate causality and gather more information about its usefulness, and optimal handcycle training regimes for recreationally active wheelchair users.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMonitoring of handcycle training load is important to structure the training effort and intensity over time and to eventually optimize performance capacity. This is especially important for relatively untrained wheelchair users, who have a low physical capacity and a high risk of overuse injuries and shoulder pain.Training load can be easily calculated by multiplying the intensity of the training (RPE 0-10) with the duration of the training in minutes.Results on handcycle training at RPE 5-6 intensity in recreationally active wheelchair users suggests to be promising and should be further investigated with controlled studies.