Overtraining and under recovery?

[Guest guest]

This seems to be based on the so called one-factor model (Selye's general

adaptation syndrome), which doesn't adequately address the body's response

to a stimulus. According to some authors " this is better described using the

fitness-fatigue (or two-factor) model, where the overreaching stimulus

resuls in large fitness after-effects but at the consequence of large

fatigue after-effects. If the fitness after-effects can be retained while

the fatigue after-effects are dissipate, than a delayed training effect

manifests (Chiu, 2005)...a stimulus can lead to a positive adaptation

without ever causing a negative response. Similarly, a stimulus can lead to

a negative response, but no positive adaptation. "

Casler writes:

Hi ,

I wasn't actually attempting to suggest a " single " training adaptation model

as much as what general classifications are used.

While we might think that there is such a thing as " single factor " training,

I believe ALL training is dual factor FATIGUE/FITNESS. The stimulus

produces FATIGUE, and the recovery period produces the FITNESS. It is the

" balance " of these two factors that we can manipulate to our goals.

The most simple class is what is seen in beginners and low intensity/low

work schemes where the recovery is complete or almost complete between bouts

= Stimulus and Complete Recovery.

Then as the trainee progresses they often move to the second classification

of attaining some level of over reaching simply due to the amount of work,

the amount of load, and the disproportionate recovery to stimulus period.

This means over reaching has occurred and over reaching then becomes part of

the " stimulus " mechanism. Most realize they are at this stage, when a week

or 10 days off training results in significant gains or performances.

Then in the far more advanced (or also the trainee who long term does not

pay attention to recovery elements) the over reaching compounds into

negative results short term due to using the over reaching as a

tool/mechanism to create a larger stimulus relative to the recovery. The

trainee is via this method creating far larger fatigue products than can be

accomplished with more complete adaptive cycles. These cycles then of

course, " if planned " and utilized with periods proper adaptive length will

(it is believed) yield the more advanced results.

It should also be noted however that, as was my main point, that ALL

stimulus and adaptation cycles are ALWAYS regulated by " both " the stimulus

and the effectiveness of the adaptation. If one is out of balance to the

desired goal, then unplanned over training/reaching can occur.

I would think we all agree that stimulus and adaptations are inextricably

linked. The level and volume of the stimulus and the elements included to

facilitate the effective adaptation to the stimulus will determine the

result.

I feel the author was trying to separate and recognize those very elements,

but got carried away slightly in their separation. It is a balancing act.

Recognizing the program stimulus elements and then implementing the " right "

recovery and adaptive elements to the goal of training at that time, will

determine how efficient and effective the routine will be.

I find the Single Factor programs are fine for Beginners and Lower Level

Fitness goals, but as we move to higher level athletes, the Dual Factor

(Fitness Fatigue) elements need to be considered and employed. Now days we

even have recovery elements like nutrient timing, massage, cold water

therapies, scheduled multiple rest cycles, etc.

This has been recognized years before it was assembled as a theory. I

remember back in the 60's having the " old timers " tell me about planned

layoffs every few weeks to let your body recover. To them it was

instinctive. Chances are they were watching me in my " then " youthful

exuberance train 6 and 7 days a week, not realizing that the body required a

specific adaptive period to actually respond to the stimulus.

Now I know. And in my geezer status, the Fitness/Fatigue elements are FAR

different. This too is one of the factors that will enter into the Cycles.

Recovery/Adaptive Cycles must be scheduled to allow for the " amount " of

Fitness desired, and or in the planned over reaching periodization schemes

the right amount of residual fatigue to be maintained and or carried over

for the next session (which will allow an even deeper or higher level of

fatigue to be attained as an increased stimulus) This all gets pretty

complex.

All in all however it would be difficult to have over training without under

recovery, and vice versa. Since one produces the stimulus (fatigue) and the

other the adaptation (fitness) they are a team that must balance each other

toward the specific goals of the specific training cycle being employed.

Good topic.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems

Century City, CA

-||||--------||||-