Seasonal environmental changes can create unique challenges for year-long training among track-and-field athletes. However, the competitive track-and-field season is held in the summer months of the northern hemisphere and major international track-and-field competitions, such as the World
Douglas J. Casa, Samuel N. Cheuvront, Stuart D. Galloway and Susan M. Shirreffs
Amelia J. Carr, Philo U. Saunders, Laura A. Garvican-Lewis and Brent S. Vallance
For many endurance athletes, altitude training is a key component of their preparation for major competitions. 1 According to the classical or live high:train high (LHTH) altitude-training model, athletes travel to venues of increased elevation to live and train for 2 to 4 weeks, in preparation
David Light Shields and Brenda Light Bredemeier
Most coaches assume that athletes already know what “competition” means and how to engage in it. We propose, in contrast, that competition is often misunderstood and that coaches need to intentionally teach about it, and help their athletes come to appreciate its purpose and values. Social scientists, too, have often misunderstood competition and, as a result, have frequently concluded that it leads to such negative outcomes as hostility, prejudice and aggression. To clarify the meaning of competition, it is helpful to distinguish it from a related process that can also occur within a contest. In keeping with the word’s etymology, we define competition as: a form of partnership with an opponent that enacts an enjoyable quest for excellence.In contrast, when participants view the contest not as a partnership for excellence, but as a miniature battle or war, contesting should be designated de-competition. De-competition is a separate, distinguishable process with its own dynamics. The distinction between competition and de-competition has significant and far-reaching practical implications, since the two processes tap different motives, focus on different goals, foster a different type of relationship with opponents, lead to different approaches to rules and officials, stimulates different types of emotions, and promote different ideas about what an ideal contest entails. When coaches deliberately teach and foster true competition, competition can be reclaimed for excellence, ethics, and enjoyment.
Louise M. Burke, John A. Hawley, Asker Jeukendrup, James P. Morton, Trent Stellingwerff and Ronald J. Maughan
update refined the concept of the different and changing CHO requirements between and within athletes by explicitly stating that: (a) high CHO availability is required only for sessions in which training or competition involves higher intensity workloads and the need to perform optimally or train with
Shelley L. Holden, Christopher M. Keshock, Brooke E. Forester and Robert J. Heitman
Athlete burnout is a phenomenon that has been studied in previous research and is a concern in terms of athlete’s health and well–being (Capel, Sisley, & Desertrain, 1987; Harris, 2005; Kelley, Eklund, & Ritter-Taylor, 1999; Kjormo & Halvari, 2006; Raedeke, Warren, & Granzyk, 2000). Further, it is assumed by many sport coaches that the longer an athlete competes competitively in a sport, the greater chance for athlete burnout and the potential negative health consequences they could incur.
The purpose of the current study was to determine the correlation between years of sport competition and an athlete’s level of burnout on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales of Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA).
The study was limited female athletes at a Division I institution in the Southeastern United States. Participants for this study were obtained via voluntary participation. The number of female athletes who completed the survey was 99. Athletes who participated were members of the women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, track and field, and volleyball teams.
The data was analyzed using Pearson correlations. Each burnout subscale was analyzed separately with years of sport competition. Results found no significant (p<.05) correlations between years of sport competition and EE (p=.038), DP (p=.029), or PA (p=-.062).
The current findings indicate that years of sport competition are not correlated with levels of burnout and female Division I collegiate athletes. Much prior research has also examined intensive training and effects on young athletes and concluded that there are concerns about intense training and psychological injury (Maffulli & Pintore, 1990). Therefore, based upon prior research and the results of the current study, future research should continue to study the effects of years of competition and burnout in order to truly understand its effects on athletes.
Jolynn S. Kuhlman and Kathy S. Boone Ginter
K. Paul Nesselroade Jr.
Training quantification is basic to evaluate an endurance athlete’s responses to training loads, ensure adequate stress/recovery balance, and determine the relationship between training and performance. Quantifying both external and internal workload is important, because external workload does not measure the biological stress imposed by the exercise sessions. Generally used quantification methods include retrospective questionnaires, diaries, direct observation, and physiological monitoring, often based on the measurement of oxygen uptake, heart rate, and blood lactate concentration. Other methods in use in endurance sports include speed measurement and the measurement of power output, made possible by recent technological advances such as power meters in cycling and triathlon. Among subjective methods of quantification, rating of perceived exertion stands out because of its wide use. Concurrent assessments of the various quantification methods allow researchers and practitioners to evaluate stress/recovery balance, adjust individual training programs, and determine the relationships between external load, internal load, and athletes’ performance. This brief review summarizes the most relevant external- and internal-workload-quantification methods in endurance sports and provides practical examples of their implementation to adjust the training programs of elite athletes in accordance with their individualized stress/recovery balance.
Although the concept of training periodization has been developing over the last 70 years, the concept of nutrition and body composition periodization synched with training and competition demands is just emerging ( Jeukendrup, 2017 ; Stellingwerff et al., 2007 , 2011 ). However, beyond these
Gary J. Slater, Jennifer Sygo and Majke Jorgensen
competition demands offers insight into optimum nutrition support for sprinters. Elite sprinters typically train for 1.5–4 hr/day, 5–6 days/week, with one or two of these days focused on low-intensity regenerative work. Training is typically periodized to develop maximum power of the major muscle groups using