The ability to monitor training is critical to the process of quantitating training periodization plans. To date, no method has proven successful in monitoring training during multiple types of exercise. High-intensity exercise training is particularly difficult to quantitate. In this study we evaluate the ability of the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method to quantitate training during non-steady state and prolonged exercise compared with an objective standard based on heart rate (HR). In a 2-part design, subjects performed steady state and interval cycle exercise or practiced basketball. Exercise bouts were quantitated using both the session RPE method and an objective HR method. During cycle exercise, the relationship between the exercise score derived using the session RPE method and the HR method was highly consistent, although the absolute score was significantly greater with the session RPE method. During basketball, there was a consistent relationship between the 2 methods of monitoring exercise, although the absolute score was also significantly greater with the session RPE method. Despite using different subjects in the 2 parts of the study, the regression relationships between the session RPE method and the HR method were nearly overlapping, suggesting the broad applicability of this method. We conclude that the session RPE method is a valid method of quantitating exercise training during a wide variety of types of exercise. As such, this technique may hold promise as a mode and intensity-independent method of quantitating exercise training and may provide a tool to allow the quantitative evaluation of training periodization plans.

These suggest that simple methods of monitoring the characteristics of training may allow the athlete to achieve the goals of training while minimizing undesired training outcomes.

Successful training must involve overload, but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short-term performance decrement, without severe psychological, or lasting other negative symptoms. This Functional Overreaching (FOR) will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, Non-Functional Overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and the Overtraining Syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be 'prolonged maladaptation' not only of the athlete, but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirmor refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the aetiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, etc., together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this paper, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meets all criteria to make its use generally accepted.

No abstract

This article examines how pacing strategies during exercise are controlled by information processing between the brain and peripheral physiological systems. It is suggested that, although several different pacing strategies can be used by athletes for events of different distance or duration, the underlying principle of how these different overall pacing strategies are controlled is similar. Perhaps the most important factor allowing the establishment of a pacing strategy is knowledge of the endpoint of a particular event. The brain centre controlling pace incorporates knowledge of the endpoint into an algorithm, together with memory of prior events of similar distance or duration, and knowledge of external (environmental) and internal (metabolic) conditions to set a particular optimal pacing strategy for a particular exercise bout. It is proposed that an internal clock, which appears to use scalar rather than absolute time scales, is used by the brain to generate knowledge of the duration or distance still to be covered, so that power output and metabolic rate can be altered appropriately throughout an event of a particular duration or distance. Although the initial pace is set at the beginning of an event in a feedforward manner, no event or internal physiological state will be identical to what has occurred previously. Therefore, continuous adjustments to the power output in the context of the overall pacing strategy occur throughout the exercise bout using feedback information from internal and external receptors. These continuous adjustments in power output require a specific length of time for afferent information to be assessed by the brain's pace control algorithm, and for efferent neural commands to be generated, and we suggest that it is this time lag that crates the fluctuations in power output that occur during an exercise bout. These non-monotonic changes in power output during exercise, associated with information processing between the brain and peripheral physiological systems, are crucial to maintain the overall pacing strategy chosen by the brain algorithm of each athlete at the start of the exercise bout.