Context: To understand overtraining syndrome (OTS), it is important to detail the physiological and psychological changes that occur in athletes. Objectives: To systematically establish and detail the physiological and psychological changes that occur as a result of OTS in athletes. Methods: Databases were searched for studies that were (1) original investigations; (2) English, full-text articles; (3) published in peer-reviewed journals; (4) investigations into adult humans and provided (5) objective evidence that detailed changes in performance from prior to the onset of OTS diagnosis and that performance was suppressed for more than 4 weeks and (6) objective evidence of psychological symptoms. Results: Zero studies provided objective evidence of detailed changes in performance from prior to the onset of OTS diagnosis and demonstrated suppressed performance for more than 4 weeks accompanied by changes in psychological symptoms. Conclusions: All studies failed to provide evidence of changes in performance and mood from “healthy” to an overtrained state with evidence of prolonged suppression of performance. While OTS may be observed in the field, little data is available describing how physiological and psychological symptoms manifest. This stems from vague terminology, difficulties in monitoring for prolonged periods of time, and the need for prospective testing. Real-world settings may facilitate the collection of such data, but the ideal testing battery that can easily be conducted on a regular basis does not yet exist. Consequently, it must be concluded that an evidence base of sufficient scientific quality for understanding OTS in athletes is lacking.
Jonathon Weakley, Shona L. Halson, and Iñigo Mujika
Danica Janicijevic, Ivan Jukic, Jonathon Weakley, and Amador García-Ramos
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine 1-repetition maximum (1RM) prediction methods during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises performed in a Smith machine. Method: A total of 86 men performed 2 identical sessions (incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set to failure) in a randomized order during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises. Individualized load–velocity relationships were modeled by linear and polynomial regression models considering 4 loads (45%–60%–75%–90% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and considering only 2 loads (45%–90% of 1RM) by a linear regression (2-point method). Three minimal velocity thresholds were used: the general velocity of 0.17 m·s−1 (general velocity of the 1RM [V1RM]), the velocity obtained when lifting the 1RM load (individual V1RM), and the velocity obtained during the last repetition of a set to failure. Results: The 1RM prediction methods were generally valid (range: r = .96–.99, standard error of the estimate = 2.8–4.9 kg or 4.6%–8.0% of 1RM). The multiple-point linear method (2.79 [2.29] kg) was more precise than the multiple-point polynomial method (3.54 [3.31] kg; P = .013), but no significant differences were observed when compared with the 2-point method (3.09 [2.66] kg, P = .136). The velocity of the last repetition of a set to failure (3.47 [2.97] kg) was significantly less precise than the individual V1RM (2.91 [2.75] kg, P = .009) and general V1RM (3.00 [2.65] kg, P = .010). Conclusions: Linear regression models and a general minimal velocity threshold of 0.17 m·s−1 should be recommended to obtain a quick and precise estimation of the 1RM during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine.
Amador García-Ramos, Jonathon Weakley, Danica Janicijevic, and Ivan Jukic
Purpose: To explore the effect of several methodological factors on the number of repetitions performed before and after reaching certain velocity loss thresholds (VLTs). Method: Fifteen resistance-trained men (bench press 1-repetition maximum = 1.25 [0.16] kg·kg−1) performed with maximum intent a total of 182 sets (77 short sets [≤12 repetitions] and 105 long sets [>12 repetitions]) leading to failure during the Smith machine bench press exercise. Fifteen percent, 30%, and 45% VLTs were calculated, considering 2 reference repetitions (first and fastest repetitions) and 2 velocity variables (mean velocity [MV] and peak velocity [PV]). Results: The number of repetitions performed before reaching all VLTs were affected by the reference repetition and velocity variable (P ≤ .001). The fastest MV and PV during the short sets (75.3%) and PV during the long sets (72.4%) were predominantly observed during the first repetition, while the fastest MV during long sets was almost equally distributed between the first (37.1%) and second repetition (40.0%). Failure occurred before reaching the VLTs more frequently using PV (4, 8, and 33 occasions for 15%, 30%, and 45% VLTs, respectively) than MV (only 1 occasion for the 45% VLT). The participants rarely produced a velocity output above a VLT once this threshold was exceeded for the first time (≈10% and 30% of occasions during the short and long sets, respectively). Conclusions: The reference repetition and velocity variable are important factors to consider when implementing VLTs during resistance training. The fastest repetition (instead of the first repetition) and MV (instead of PV) are recommended.
Jonathon Weakley, Kevin Till, John Sampson, Harry Banyard, Cedric Leduc, Kyle Wilson, Greg Roe, and Ben Jones
Purpose: Feedback can enhance acute physical performance. However, its effects on physical adaptation have received little attention. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of feedback during a 4-wk training program on jump, sprint, and strength adaptations. Methods: A total of 28 semiprofessional male rugby union players were strength-matched into 2 groups (feedback and nonfeedback). During the 4-wk training program, the Feedback group received immediate, objective feedback on (1) mean concentric velocity during resistance training repetitions, (2) distance feedback for standing broad jumps, and (3) time for sprints. The Nonfeedback group was not provided additional information. Across the 4-wk mesocycle, subjects completed 3 strength and conditioning sessions per week. Countermovement jump, standing long jump, 10- and 20-m sprint, and 3-repetition-maximum barbell back squat and bench press were measured before and after the training intervention. Magnitude-based inferences assessed meaningful changes within and between groups. Results: The Feedback group showed small to moderate improvements in outcome measures, whereas the Nonfeedback group demonstrated trivial to small improvements. Improvements in countermovement-jump relative peak power (effect size ± 90% confidence limits: 0.34 ± 0.42), 10-m (0.20 ± 0.35) and 20-m sprints (0.40 ± 0.21), and 3-repetition-maximum back squats (0.23 ± 0.17) were possibly to likely greater for the Feedback condition than for Nonfeedback. Conclusions: Providing augmented feedback during strength and conditioning routines can enhance training adaptations compared with athletes who do not receive feedback. Consequently, practitioners should consider providing kinematic outputs, displacement, or sprint time at the completion of each repetition as athletes train.
Cédric Leduc, Jason Tee, Mathieu Lacome, Jonathon Weakley, Jeremy Cheradame, Carlos Ramirez, and Ben Jones
Purpose: To investigate the convergent validity, reliability, and sensitivity over a week of training of a standardized running test to measure neuromuscular fatigue. Methods: Twenty male rugby union players were recruited for the study, which took place during preseason. The standardized running test consisted of four 60-m runs paced at ~5 m·s−1 with 33 seconds of recovery between trials. Data from micromechanical electrical systems were used to calculate a running-load index (RLI), which was a ratio between the mechanical load and the speed performed during runs. RLI was calculated by using either the entire duration of the run or a constant-velocity period. For each type of calculation, either an individual directional or the sum of the 3 components of the accelerometer was used. A measure of leg stiffness was used to assess the convergent validity of the RLI. Results: Unclear to large relationships between leg stiffness and RLI were found (r ranged from −.20 to .62). Regarding reliability, small to moderate (.47–.86) standardized typical errors were found. The sensitivity analysis showed that the leg stiffness presented a very likely trivial change over the course of 1 week of training, whereas RLI showed very likely small to a most likely large change. Conclusions: This study showed that RLI is a practical method to measure neuromuscular fatigue. In addition, such a methodology aligns with the constraint of elite team-sport setup due to its ease of implementation in practice.
Harry G. Banyard, James J. Tufano, Jonathon J.S. Weakley, Sam Wu, Ivan Jukic, and Kazunori Nosaka
Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) percentage-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ), and sprint performance. Methods: A total of 24 resistance-trained males performed 6 weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3 times per week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. The PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59% to 85% of preintervention 1RM. The VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pretraining individualized load–velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pretraining and posttraining assessments included the 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ at 30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5 and 10 m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD). Results: The VBT group maintained faster (effect size [ES] = 1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES = 0.72) compared with the PBT group. The VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in the COD (ES = −1.20 to −1.27), 5-m sprint (ES = −1.17), 10-m sprint (ES = −0.93), 1RM (ES = 0.89), and PV-CMJ (ES = 0.79). The PBT group had almost certain improvements in the 1RM (ES = 1.41) and possibly beneficial improvements in the COD (ES = −0.86). Very likely favorable between-groups effects were observed for VBT compared to PBT in the PV-CMJ (ES = 1.81), 5-m sprint (ES = 1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES = 1.27); likely favorable between-groups effects were observed in the 10-m sprint (ES = 1.24) and nondominant-leg COD (ES = 0.96), whereas the dominant-leg COD (ES = 0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES = 0.57), but unclear differences for 1RM improvement compared to VBT. Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whereas VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint, and COD improvements.
Gregory Roe, Joshua Darrall-Jones, Kevin Till, Padraic Phibbs, Dale Read, Jonathon Weakley, and Ben Jones
To evaluate changes in performance of a 6-s cycle-ergometer test (CET) and countermovement jump (CMJ) during a 6-wk training block in professional rugby union players.
Twelve young professional rugby union players performed 2 CETs and CMJs on the 1st and 4th mornings of every week before the commencement of daily training during a 6-wk training block. Standardized changes in the highest score of 2 CET and CMJ efforts were assessed using linear mixed modeling and magnitude-based inferences.
After increases in training load during wk 3 to 5, moderate decreases in CMJ peak and mean power and small decreases in flight time were observed during wk 5 and 6 that were very likely to almost certainly greater than the smallest worthwhile change (SWC), suggesting neuromuscular fatigue. However, only small decreases, possibly greater than the SWC, were observed in CET peak power. Changes in CMJ peak and mean power were moderately greater than in CET peak power during this period, while the difference between flight time and CET peak power was small.
The greater weekly changes in CMJ metrics in comparison with CET may indicate differences in the capacities of these tests to measure training-induced lower-body neuromuscular fatigue in rugby union players. However, future research is needed to ascertain the specific modes of training that elicit changes in CMJ and CET to determine the efficacy of each test for monitoring neuromuscular function in rugby union players.
Gregory Roe, Joshua Darrall-Jones, Kevin Till, Padraic Phibbs, Dale Read, Jonathon Weakley, and Ben Jones
This study established the between-days reliability and sensitivity of a countermovement jump (CMJ), plyometric push-up, well-being questionnaire, and whole-blood creatine kinase concentration ([CK]) in elite male youth rugby union players. The study also established the between-days reliability of 1, 2, or 3 CMJs and plyometric-push-up attempts. Twenty-five players completed tests on 2 occasions separated by 5 d (of rest). Between-days typical error, coefficient of variation (CV), and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) were calculated for the well-being questionnaire, [CK], and CMJ and plyometric-push-up metrics (peak/mean power, peak/mean force, height, flight time, and flight-time to contraction-time ratio) for 1 maximal effort or taking the highest score from 2 or 3 maximal efforts. The results suggest that CMJ mean power (2 or 3 attempts), peak force, or mean force and plyometric-push-up mean force (from 2 or 3 attempts) should be used for assessing lower- and upper-body neuromuscular function, respectively, due to both their acceptable reliability (CV < 5%) and good sensitivity (CV < SWC). The well-being questionnaire and [CK] demonstrated between-days CVs >5% (7.1% and 26.1%, respectively) and poor sensitivity (CV > SWC). The findings from this study can be used when interpreting fatigue markers to make an objective decision about a player’s readiness to train or compete.
Jonathon Weakley, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Shaun McLaren, Nick Dalton-Barron, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones, Kevin Till, and Harry Banyard
Purpose: Prescribing resistance training using velocity loss thresholds can enhance exercise quality by mitigating neuromuscular fatigue. As little is known regarding performance during these protocols, we aimed to assess the effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, kinematic, and repetition characteristics in the free-weight back squat. Methods: Using a randomized crossover design, 16 resistance-trained men were recruited to complete 5 sets of the barbell back squat. Lifting load corresponded to a mean concentric velocity (MV) of ∼0.70 m·s−1 (115  kg). Repetitions were performed until a 10%, 20%, or 30% MV loss was attained. Results: Set MV and power output were substantially higher in the 10% protocol (0.66 m·s−1 and 1341 W, respectively), followed by the 20% (0.62 m·s−1 and 1246 W) and 30% protocols (0.59 m·s−1 and 1179 W). There were no substantial changes in MV (−0.01 to −0.02 m·s−1) or power output (−14 to −55 W) across the 5 sets for all protocols, and individual differences in these changes were typically trivial to small. Mean set repetitions were substantially higher in the 30% protocol (7.8), followed by the 20% (6.4) and 10% protocols (4.2). There were small to moderate reductions in repetitions across the 5 sets during all protocols (−39%, −31%, −19%, respectively), and individual differences in these changes were small to very large. Conclusions: Velocity training prescription maintains kinetic and kinematic output across multiple sets of the back squat, with repetition ranges being highly variable. Our findings, therefore, challenge traditional resistance training paradigms (repetition based) and add support to a velocity-based approach.
Joshua Darrall-Jones, Gregory Roe, Shane Carney, Ryan Clayton, Padraic Phibbs, Dale Read, Jonathon Weakley, Kevin Till, and Ben Jones
To evaluate the difference in performance of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30–15IFT) across 4 squads in a professional rugby union club in the UK and consider body mass in the interpretation of the end velocity of the 30-15IFT (VIFT).
One hundred fourteen rugby union players completed the 30-15IFT midseason.
VIFT demonstrated small and possibly lower (ES = –0.33; 4/29/67) values in the under 16s compared with the under 21s, with further comparisons unclear. With body mass included as a covariate, all differences were moderate to large and very likely to almost certainly lower in the squads with lower body mass, with the exception of comparisons between senior and under-21 squads.
The data demonstrate that there appears to be a ceiling to the VIFT attained in rugby union players that does not increase from under-16 to senior level. However, the associated increases in body mass with increased playing level suggest that the ability to perform high-intensity running increases with age, although not translating into greater VIFT due to the detrimental effect of body mass on change of direction. Practitioners should be aware that VIFT is unlikely to improve, but it needs to be monitored during periods where increases in body mass are evident.