Supercompensation

From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
Jump to navigationJump to search

One of my favorite sayings is "Exercise does not make you fit; it's the rest that follows exercise that makes you fit." It's a natural human failing to assume that because exercise is critical to improved fitness it's the only thing that matters. Rest and recovery are all too often viewed as a necessary evil, or sign of weakness. Even when the importance of rest is understood intellectually, it can be hard to internalize this idea.

Supercompensation is the idea that after a training session your performance first falls, then recovers, and for a short time overshoots its starting level, so the best moment for the next session is near that peak. It is a useful picture, but it is a model, and the evidence behind it is narrower than the diagrams suggest. This article separates what has been shown from what is only schematic, and then turns that into practical guidance on hard sessions, readiness and how long to leave between hard sessions.

The main points are:

  • Where an overshoot is actually seen. Muscle glycogen can rise well above its starting level after a depleting bout followed by carbohydrate[1][2] (strong evidence, for glycogen specifically). Whole-body performance overshoots are seen after a heavy training block followed by reduced load, which is the basis of the taper: a meta-analysis of 27 studies found that a two-week taper with training volume cut exponentially by 41–60% worked best[3] (strong evidence). I found no study that measured a performance overshoot after a single session in runners (absence of evidence, not proof).
  • The single-session curves are schematics. In the standard two-component (fitness and fatigue) model the dip-then-overshoot shape appears only if fatigue is larger but shorter-lived than fitness (model arithmetic), so it is a property of the model, and fitted parameters depend on the data and method used.[4][5]
  • Adaptation builds up across sessions. In human muscle, increases in mitochondrial and transcriptional proteins appear to result from the cumulative effect of short-lived responses to each session,[6] so you don't need to wait for an overshoot before training again (limited evidence).
  • A readiness marker can't yet tell "supercompensated" from "just recovered". The ECSS/ACSM consensus says no candidate marker meets the criteria for general acceptance,[7] and heart rate variability and heart rate recovery can look better, not worse, when an athlete is overreached.[8][9] The practical test is a repeatable benchmark after a block and an easier week (coaching judgement). See Training Readiness.
  • Readiness is still a reasonable gate for a hard session. The one runner trial that combined heart rate variability, perceived recovery and heart rate relative to speed found a larger 10 km improvement than a fixed plan, but it was small and partly funded by Polar Electro[10] (limited evidence).
  • How long between hard sessions? No trial in runners has tested the best gap. Elite runners typically do 2–3 hard days a week with easier running between them, and coaches from Bowerman to Daniels prescribe easy days between quality sessions. A defensible default is at least one easy or rest day after threshold-type work and two after VO2max, hill, sprint, long-run or race efforts (coaching judgement). See How long to rest between hard sessions?.
  • Overreaching is not required. In 33 trained male triathletes, those who were only acutely fatigued after a three-week overload had a bigger performance rebound in the taper than those who became functionally overreached.[11] The research on this is mixed (limited evidence).[12]

Claims are labelled where it helps: strong evidence (substantial, consistent research), limited evidence (a few small or indirect studies), consistent elite practice (what successful athletes do, which is not proof of cause), coaching judgement (reasoned practice that has not been tested) and personal hypothesis (mine, untested). Industry funding is noted where I found it. Most sources were read as abstracts, so the absence of a funding note is not proof there was none.

Disclosure: this revision was researched and drafted with AI (Claude). The original model descriptions and the personal observations are mine.

Practical guide

Quick start

  1. Treat the supercompensation curve as a schematic, not a schedule. Don't try to time the next session to an overshoot peak. Aim for the most training you can absorb, not the most you can tolerate.
  2. Leave at least one easy or rest day after a threshold-type session, and two after VO2max intervals, hill repeats, sprints, hard long runs and races. This is a starting default (coaching judgement); the evidence is in How long to rest between hard sessions?.
  3. Make easy days genuinely easy. A common coaching observation, which has not been tested, is that runners make easy days too hard. Elite runners do at least 80% of their running at low intensity.[13] See Recovery Runs, and Pace Range Ratio if you can't run slowly enough.
  4. Check readiness before a hard session. Rate how you feel against your own normal before you look at any device, then let the first 10–15 minutes decide. Two or more items clearly worse, or a warm-up that feels much harder than usual, means an easy run. The checks are on Training Readiness.
  5. Don't read a good heart rate or HRV number as proof you have overshot. Both can look better when you are overreached.[8][9]
  6. To find out whether a block worked, use a benchmark. Pick one or two repeatable tests (a standardized easy segment at a fixed heart rate or effort, a fixed interval session, a parkrun), do them fresh but not tapered, and repeat after a hard block plus one or two easier weeks. Better output at the same or lower effort, beyond test noise, is consistent with an overshoot; about the same means you have recovered; worse, or the same speed at higher effort, means you have not yet recovered (coaching judgement). Typical variation in a 3000 m time trial of about 1.4% is cited on Recovery Runs.
  7. Use readiness to throttle the hard minutes in your Training Budget. Threshold and high-intensity minutes count 2.5–3.5 times as much as easy minutes in the budget, so the number of hard days is the main lever.

Readiness and the training budget

These rules are coaching judgement. The only tested rule is the multi-signal one in the 15-week runner trial, summarized on Training Readiness.[10]

Readiness check What to do with the weekly budget
Morning ratings normal, warm-up normal, benchmarks stable or improving Run the planned hard session. Hold the budget, or progress it gradually.
One item clearly worse, or an HRV or heart rate flag without worse ratings Keep the budget but swap hard minutes for easy minutes. Let the warm-up decide.
Two or more items clearly worse, or a warm-up much harder than usual Cut the hard minutes and accept a lower budget this week.
Fatigue persisting for about two weeks with falling performance Stop adding load. See the doctor and iron-status advice on Training Readiness.

The science and supporting research

Where the idea comes from, and its critics

The idea is usually traced to the Soviet scientist N. N. Yakovlev's work in the 1950s (I could confirm this only from secondary sources), and Matveyev later used Yakovlev's work in his periodization model.[14] It is closely tied to Selye's general adaptation syndrome. One review argues that periodization theory still rests on outdated stress science;[15] another defends the syndrome as a useful framework for thinking about stress, fatigue and adaptation.[16] Both are narrative reviews of a conceptual argument, not tests of the model.

Modeling Supercompensation

The graphs below show the standard model. They are schematics, not data.

A single session

The graph looks at how fitness changes over time in response to a single bout of exercise in the standard model. The exercise initially reduces fitness, and rest time is required to gain the benefits.

Schematic of the standard supercompensation model for a single session. Not data.

In the usual two-component model, performance is a baseline, plus a slowly decaying fitness effect, minus a faster-decaying fatigue effect from each session.[4] The dip comes first if each session adds more fatigue than fitness, and the overshoot appears only if fatigue decays faster than fitness. That is arithmetic about the model, not a measured physiological state. Fitted constants also depend on the starting values, the fitting method and the training-load measure, so general constants should be avoided.[5]

Adequate rest

In the model, ideally you get sufficient rest so that you recover from the training stress and get the maximum benefit. This would mean starting the next training session near the peak of Supercompensation, as shown below. The evidence reviewed here does not show that you must time sessions to that peak (see Do you need to wait for the overshoot?).

Schematic: the next session starts near the peak. Not data.

Insufficient rest resulting in stagnation

Without sufficient rest, the model has you starting your next training at the end of the period marked 'Recovery'. You have not benefited from the training, just barely recovered from it, and this can carry on indefinitely with no improvement in fitness. That is a prediction of the model. Real training is less clear-cut: short deliberate blocks of closely packed hard sessions have been studied and can produce adaptation (see below).

Schematic: the next session starts at the end of recovery. Not data.

Overtraining

Main article: Overtraining

In the model, without sufficient rest to recover from the training stress, the fitness level starts to decline, with each training bout further reducing fitness. Sadly, the response to this is often to increase the training stress, creating a positive feedback cycle.

Schematic: sessions repeated before recovery. Not data.

The ECSS/ACSM consensus describes a continuum. Functional overreaching is a short-term fall in performance that is followed by improvement after recovery. Non-functional overreaching lasts longer, and overtraining syndrome is a prolonged maladaptation that is diagnosed by excluding other causes.[7] The consensus calls it a syndrome because the cause is multifactorial and training is not necessarily the only factor.[7] My personal view is that other life stresses can contribute to Overtraining Syndrome, and that "overtraining" is a misleading name because it implies excessive training is the problem. Something like "training induced clinical depression" would be better (personal hypothesis). It is also unclear how life stresses affect supercompensation.

Intensity

In the model, different intensities produce different levels of fatigue and resulting Supercompensation. In the diagram below, the blue line shows insufficient intensity, producing only a small amount of Supercompensation. The orange line is too intense, requiring so long to recover that little Supercompensation occurs. The red line shows far too much intensity, resulting in an inability to Supercompensate. The black line shows an intensity level resulting in injury rather than Supercompensation. This is a 'Goldilocks' picture, where too much or too little intensity produces a negative outcome. I believe each individual has an optimum level of exercise and recovery, but I know of no way to measure it (personal hypothesis). Exercise is not a situation where 'more is better': in the triathlete study above, going further into overreaching gave a smaller taper rebound, not a bigger one.[11]

Schematic of five intensities in the model. Not data.

Where an overshoot is actually seen

  • Muscle glycogen (strong evidence). After glycogen-depleting exercise followed by carbohydrate, muscle glycogen can rise far above its resting level, and this effect is restricted to the exercised muscle.[1][2] It is a specific, mechanistic overshoot. It is not the same as a whole-body "fitness" overshoot.
  • Tapering (strong evidence that it works). A meta-analysis of 27 studies found that a two-week taper with training volume reduced exponentially by 41–60%, without changing intensity or frequency, was the most efficient strategy.[3] A heavier block before the taper gave larger gains in a controlled trial, but not when it pushed athletes into functional overreaching.[11] Elite runners start tapering 7–10 days before the main event.[13] See Three Phase Taper.
  • Functional overreaching (limited evidence). In 21 trained male triathletes (13 intensified, 8 on normal training), all of the intensified group lost about 9% on a maximal running test after three weeks of overload and then improved after a taper, which is how they were classed as functionally overreached.[8] Because that label is applied after the rebound, it can't tell you beforehand who will overshoot.
  • Overreaching is not required (limited evidence). In 33 trained male triathletes (23 overloaded for three weeks, 10 controls), the acutely fatigued group had a peak performance gain about 2.6% larger than both the functionally overreached group and the controls after a four-week taper. VO2max rose only in the control and acutely fatigued groups, and infections were more common in the overreached group (70%, against 20% and 10%).[11] A review found some studies show substantial supercompensation in overreached athletes and others show dampened adaptation, and called defining overreaching by performance alone an oversimplification.[12]
  • A single session. I found no study measuring a whole-body performance overshoot after a single session in runners. The single-session curve is best read as a teaching schematic.

Can a readiness marker show an overshoot?

No. The marker you want is performance itself, and performance can only show an overshoot afterwards.

  • No agreed marker. The consensus statement lists many candidate markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) and says none meets all the criteria for general acceptance.[7]
  • Autonomic markers can look better when you are fatigued. In 21 trained male triathletes, weekly-averaged HRV showed a progressive rise in parasympathetic modulation during overreaching, while once-weekly readings missed it.[8] A systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 studies found that increases in post-exercise HRV and heart rate recovery occur with both positive adaptation and overreaching, so additional measures of training tolerance may be needed.[9] Heart rate recovery rose by about 8 beats per minute only in the overreached group of 31 male triathletes.[17] This is the same warning as on Training Readiness.
  • So use a benchmark. A repeatable test after a block and an easier week, read together with effort and how you feel, is the practical way to tell "supercompensated" from "just recovered" (coaching judgement; see the quick start above).

Does readiness-gated training work?

  • Multi-signal rule (limited evidence). In a 15-week trial of recreational runners (14 on a predefined plan, 16 individualized), the individualized group's training load was decreased, maintained or increased twice a week using nocturnal HRV, perceived recovery and heart rate relative to running speed. Their 10 km time improved 6.2% against 2.9% for the predefined group, with more high responders and fewer low responders on the authors' definition. Polar Electro Oy supplied the heart rate monitors and partial funding.[10]
  • HRV alone (limited evidence). In 26 moderately fit men over four weeks, a fixed plan with four hard sessions in six days improved maximal running speed, and a group that did a hard session only when HRV had not fallen improved it more. The change in VO2peak was not different.[18]
  • Pooled results. A meta-analysis of eight studies (198 participants) found HRV-guided groups did fewer moderate- and high-intensity sessions, with a small, non-significant effect on performance but fewer non-responders and more positive responders.[19] My reading is that the gain probably comes from skipping hard sessions on bad days.

Do you need to wait for the overshoot?

  • Adaptation accrues session by session (limited evidence). Over a seven-session high-intensity interval training period, increases in mitochondrial and transcriptional proteins appeared to result from the cumulative effect of short-lived bursts of mRNA after each session.[6]
  • Closely packed hard sessions can work, in cyclists (limited evidence). In well-trained cyclists, a 12-week block plan (five high-intensity sessions in every fourth week, then one a week for three weeks) did better than two a week.[20] A meta-analysis found small benefits but warned the studies were small and of low quality,[21] and a later 12-week trial in 30 trained cyclists found no difference.[22]
  • Starting a session before you have fully recovered has a cost. In seven untrained men using a one-leg design, training twice every second day appeared better than daily training for some adaptations.[23] In 14 trained cyclists and triathletes, the same pattern reduced high-intensity training capacity, with similar performance gains (about 10%) in both groups.[24] Un-recovered sessions can help some adaptations but cost session quality, which is what a readiness check protects.

Different Systems

The diagram below represents a personal hypothesis based on my observation that long runs and speedwork can be combined. After a long run, it is quite practical to perform speedwork and gain benefits, when doing a long run at that point in the recovery would produce serious fatigue or injury. My hypothesis is that the long run primarily affects the endurance fitness and speedwork primarily affects aerobic fitness. Thus a long run triggers the endurance Supercompensation curve (red), but does not have much impact on the aerobic Supercompensation curve (green). Likewise, the speedwork triggers the aerobic Supercompensation curve (green), but does not have much impact on the endurance Supercompensation curve (red). In practice, things are probably a lot more complex than this, but I believe this is a useful model. (As George P. E. Box said "All models are wrong, but some models are useful".) I use "endurance" and "aerobic" loosely here; the more defensible framing is that different tissues and systems recover at different rates.

Personal hypothesis: two systems, two curves. Schematic, not data.

The general idea that systems recover at different rates has some support: cardiac autonomic recovery does not coincide with recovery of energy stores or the neuromuscular system,[25] and jump height, soreness and perceived recovery recover on different timescales after interval sessions in runners.[26] The related idea of "residual training effects" has been proposed as a basis for block periodization,[27] but critics note that its key citations are self-referenced opinion pieces rather than evidence-led science.[28] My specific long run versus speedwork hypothesis remains a personal hypothesis. See also Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness for muscle damage, where strength loss can outlast soreness.

How long to rest between hard sessions?

This section covers only the gap between hard sessions. How many days a week to run is covered on How Often To Run. "Hard" here means threshold, VO2max, hill, sprint, long-run or race efforts, not an easy or recovery run (see Recovery Runs).

No trial in runners has tested the best gap between hard sessions (I found none, which is not proof that none exists). What exists is some recovery time-course research, a consistent elite pattern, coaching standards and some indirect training studies.

Recovery time-course after single sessions (limited evidence)

  • Repeating a maximal effort. In 12 well-trained runners, a second 5K after 24 hours of passive recovery averaged about 10 seconds slower than the first (p = 0.03). After 72 hours the difference was not significant (19:34 against 19:30). Nine runners were slower at 24 hours, and at 72 hours five were faster, four unchanged and three slower. A 48-hour gap was not tested.[29]
  • Neuromuscular function after intervals. In 20 recreational club runners (10 women, 10 men) who ran 6 × 800 m, most had recovered in gait and neuromuscular function within 24 hours, and a minority had not. The authors suggested that those who had not recovered might be at higher injury risk, based on gait changes; injuries were not measured.[30]
  • Three interval formats at 24 and 48 hours. In 33 male middle-distance runners (average age 19.6) who did 12 × 200 m, 4 × 1000 m or repeated sprints in separate weeks and did not train for 48 hours afterwards, jump height was back near baseline by 24 hours after the two interval formats. Perceived recovery was still below baseline at 48 hours after all three, soreness peaked at 24 hours, and repeated sprints took longer to recover from. The authors could not make recommendations beyond 48 hours.[26]
  • Cardiac autonomic recovery. A review found that complete recovery after a single session takes up to 24 hours after low-intensity exercise, 24–48 hours after threshold exercise and at least 48 hours after high-intensity exercise. It does not coincide with recovery of energy stores or the neuromuscular system.[25]
  • These studies mostly tested interval sessions in young or recreational runners. Long runs, races and downhill running take longer to recover from (see Recovery Runs).

Elite practice (consistent elite practice)

  • World-class track and marathon runners do 11–14 sessions a week with at least 80% of running volume at low intensity. The authors summarize Bowerman's approach as 2–3 weekly interval sessions, a weekly long run and as much low-intensity running as can be handled, and say it holds for most successful distance runners over the last five decades.[13]
  • Two case-study weeks are printed in that review. Kipchoge's general-preparation week has hard sessions on Tuesday (track intervals), Thursday (long run) and Saturday (fartlek), with easy running between. Longosiwa's competition-period week (a 5000 m runner coached by Renato Canova) has quality work on Monday evening, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, which includes a back-to-back pair. Both are single athletes training at altitude with double sessions on most days, and the authors warn that many unsuccessful athletes have applied the same recipe.[13]
  • A systematic review of ten studies of highly trained and elite runners recommends a hard day–easy day basis, and found threshold-type and higher-intensity sessions were each used at least once a week in elite runners.[31]
  • The lactate-guided threshold model used by some Norwegian elite runners has three to four threshold sessions and one VO2max session a week, including two double-session threshold days built on a hard day–easy day pattern. The authors argue that threshold intensity allows faster recovery between hard sessions than higher intensities, so more hard sessions a week. It is a narrative review of observations, the authors state that no controlled study has tested it, and one author originated the model. The paper reports no external funding.[32]

Coaching standards (coaching judgement, not research)

  • Bowerman's hard/easy approach followed an intense session with an easy day, which Bosak and colleagues describe as an intense workout about every 48 hours.[29]
  • Jack Daniels says to schedule easy days between the quality sessions,[33] and writes of two easy days after a Saturday race and before a quality session.[34]
  • An Active.com article quoting coaches Deena Kastor and Greg McMillan advises never running two hard days in a row.[35]
  • The introduction to a peer-reviewed trial protocol notes that it is commonly recommended to separate HIIT sessions by 48 hours.[36]

Testing the three common claims

Claim What the evidence shows Label
1–2 easy or rest days between hard sessions The time-course studies above suggest most neuromuscular function is back within about 24–48 hours after typical interval sessions, while autonomic and perceived recovery can lag. Elite runners typically alternate hard and easy days, and coaches prescribe easy days between quality sessions. The optimal gap itself has not been tested. Consistent elite practice and coaching standard; limited evidence on recovery times
Hard sessions every day are suboptimal No trial in runners compares daily hard sessions with spaced ones. Coaches and elite runners avoid the pattern, and the consensus statement describes overload with inadequate recovery as the route to non-functional overreaching.[7] Short deliberate blocks of closely packed hard sessions are a studied exception, mostly in cyclists (see above). A review of shock microcycles (for example 15 HIIT sessions in 11 days) calls them sustainable in the short term,[37] and a protocol notes that athletes are monitored for fatigue to reduce the risk of injury or overtraining symptoms.[36] In the four-week trial in moderately fit men above, four hard sessions in six days still improved maximal running speed, but less than a readiness-gated plan.[18] Coaching judgement; limited evidence
More than 3 days between hard sessions is suboptimal I found no study showing that a gap of 3–4 days is worse than 2–3 days. The real issue is weekly dose. A meta-analysis of interval programs found a dose-response with the number of HIIT sessions, but concluded that increasing the dose beyond minimal requirements may not augment the response.[38] A review found endurance performance maintained for up to 15 weeks with as few as two sessions a week when intensity was kept (general populations, not athletes).[39] In the block plan above, three of every four weeks had a single high-intensity session and the plan did better in that trial.[20] Not established

A practical default

These are coaching judgement, informed by the evidence above.

  • After threshold-type sessions (tempo runs, threshold intervals): at least one easy or rest day, about 48 hours.
  • After VO2max intervals, hill repeats, sprints or repeated sprints, hard long runs and races: at least two easy or rest days, about 72 hours, and longer after marathons, ultramarathons or a lot of hard downhill running (see Recovery Runs).
  • Extend the gap when Training Readiness says you are not ready. Shorten it only deliberately, for example in a short planned block with monitoring.
  • Individual variation is large: runners responded differently at both 24 and 72 hours in the 5K study.[29]
  • An earlier version of this article argued that easy days "do nothing more than interfere" with recovery. I have removed that claim. Haugen and colleagues note that no studies show short easy runs speed recovery, but they are a normal part of elite training,[13] and the question of how many days a week to run is for How Often To Run.

Too much rest?

It is possible to get too much rest, in the sense that long gaps eventually stop fitness building. The evidence reviewed here does not show that a gap of 3–4 days between hard sessions is harmful (see above), and the point at which gaps become too long is a question about weekly frequency, covered on How Often To Run. My impression that gaining fitness on one or two days of training a week does not work for most people is a personal hypothesis that I have not sourced.

Schematic from the model with a long gap between sessions. Not data.

Modeling Human Performance

There are various ways of Modeling Human Performance that use the short and longer term effects of training to predict performance. For a single workout, they produce a similar shape to the supercompensation schematic. The Training Stress Balance (TSB) line is the difference between a slowly and a quickly decaying training-load average, so it is an output of a load model, not a measurement of fitness or readiness. As Training Readiness explains, TSB has not been validated as a readiness measure.

The Training Stress Balance line for a single workout in a training-load model.

Training Monotony

Training Monotony is a way of measuring how similar each day's training stress is: the mean of daily load divided by its standard deviation. It is not about boredom. The main evidence is Foster's 1998 study of 25 experienced athletes, in which a high percentage of illnesses occurred when individuals exceeded individually identifiable thresholds, mostly related to the strain of training (load multiplied by monotony).[40] I found no independent validation in runners, so I would treat it as an interesting monitoring idea, not the most important metric (limited evidence). I have a simple online calculator on the Training Monotony page.

Unresolved questions

  • The gap between hard sessions. What is the best gap, for which sessions and for which runners? No trial in runners has compared gaps.
  • A single-session overshoot. Does a measurable whole-body performance overshoot happen after one session, or only after blocks and tapers?
  • Readiness-gated training. Does a simple, transparent rule improve outcomes beyond a fixed plan? The one positive runner trial needs independent replication without industry funding.
  • Who was studied. Most of this evidence is from young or recreational runners and many studies recruited only men. Women, older runners, slower runners and ultrarunners are largely absent.
  • The different-systems hypothesis. Do long runs and speedwork load different systems enough to be combined in the way I described?
  • How to define "hard". Threshold, VO2max, hill, sprint and long-run sessions probably need different gaps, and there is little direct evidence for most of them.

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Bergström J, Hultman E. Muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise: an enhancing factor localized to the muscle cells in man. Nature, 1966, 210:309–310. doi:10.1038/210309a0 (I read its description in Hingst et al., not the original text.)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Hingst JR, Bruhn L, Hansen MB, et al. Exercise-induced molecular mechanisms promoting glycogen supercompensation in human skeletal muscle. Open access: PMC6158101.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2007, 39(8):1358–1365. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Hellard P, Avalos M, Lacoste L, Barale F, Chatard JC, Millet GP. Assessing the limitations of the Banister model in monitoring training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2006, 24(5):509–520. doi:10.1080/02640410500244697
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Vermeire K, Ghijs M, Bourgois JG, Boone J. The fitness–fatigue model: what's in the numbers? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, 17(5). doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Perry CGR, Lally J, Holloway GP, Heigenhauser GJF, Bonen A, Spriet LL. Repeated transient mRNA bursts precede increases in transcriptional and mitochondrial proteins during training in human skeletal muscle. Journal of Physiology, 2010, 588(23):4795–4810. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2010.199448
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, Fry A, Gleeson M, Nieman D, Raglin J, Rietjens G, Steinacker J, Urhausen A. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2013, 45(1):186–205. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Le Meur Y, Pichon A, Schaal K, Schmitt L, Louis J, Gueneron J, Vidal PP, Hausswirth C. Evidence of parasympathetic hyperactivity in functionally overreached athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2013, 45(11):2061–2071. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182980125
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Bellenger CR, Fuller JT, Thomson RL, Davison K, Robertson EY, Buckley JD. Monitoring athletic training status through autonomic heart rate regulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 2016, 46:1461–1486. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0484-2 (No funding. One author invented a related, patented heart rate acceleration measure and may benefit financially if it is licensed.)
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Nuuttila OP, Nummela A, Korhonen E, Häkkinen K, Kyröläinen H. Individualized endurance training based on recovery and training status in recreational runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2022, 54(10):1690–1701. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002968 (Industry funding: Polar Electro Oy supplied the heart rate monitors and partial funding.)
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Aubry A, Hausswirth C, Louis J, Coutts AJ, Le Meur Y. Functional overreaching: the key to peak performance during the taper? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2014, 46(9):1769–1777. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000301
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Bellinger P. Functional overreaching in endurance athletes: a necessity or cause for concern? Sports Medicine, 2020, 50(6):1059–1073. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01269-w
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training characteristics of world-class distance runners: an integration of scientific literature and results-proven practice. Sports Medicine – Open, 2022, 8:46. doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00438-7 (No funding; no competing interests declared.)
  14. ↑ Krüger A. From Russia with love? Sixty years of proliferation of L. P. Matveyev's concept of periodisation? STAPS, 2016, 114(4):51–59. (Abstract and excerpt read only.)
  15. ↑ Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Medicine, 2018, 48(4):753–764. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0823-y
  16. ↑ Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Carroll KM, Sausaman R, Hornsby WG, Haff GG, Triplett NT, Pierce KC, Stone MH. The general adaptation syndrome: a foundation for the concept of periodization. Sports Medicine, 2018, 48(4):787–797. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0855-3
  17. ↑ Aubry A, Hausswirth C, Louis J, Coutts AJ, Buchheit M, Le Meur Y. The development of functional overreaching is associated with a faster heart rate recovery in endurance athletes. PLoS One, 2015, 10(10):e0139754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139754
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Kiviniemi AM, Hautala AJ, Kinnunen H, Tulppo MP. Endurance training guided individually by daily heart rate variability measurements. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2007, 101(6):743–751. doi:10.1007/s00421-007-0552-2 (PubMed lists non-US government research support; no industry funding seen.)
  19. ↑ Düking P, Zinner C, Trabelsi K, Reed JL, Holmberg HC, Kunz P, Sperlich B. Monitoring and adapting endurance training on the basis of heart rate variability monitored by wearable technologies: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2021, 24(11):1180–1192. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2021.04.012
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Rønnestad BR, Ellefsen S, Nygaard H, Zacharoff EE, Vikmoen O, Hansen J, Hallén J. Effects of 12 weeks of block periodization on performance and performance indices in well-trained cyclists. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2014, 24(2):327–335. doi:10.1111/sms.12016
  21. ↑ Mølmen KS, Øfsteng SJ, Rønnestad BR. Block periodization of endurance training – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 2019, 10:145–160. doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S180408
  22. ↑ Almquist NW, Eriksen HB, Wilhelmsen M, Hamarsland H, Ing S, Ellefsen S, Sandbakk Ø, Rønnestad BR, Skovereng K. No differences between 12 weeks of block- vs. traditional-periodized training in performance adaptations in trained cyclists. Frontiers in Physiology, 2022, 13:837634. doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.837634
  23. ↑ Hansen AK, Fischer CP, Plomgaard P, Andersen JL, Saltin B, Pedersen BK. Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once daily. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2005, 98(1):93–99. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00163.2004
  24. ↑ Yeo WK, Paton CD, Garnham AP, Burke LM, Carey AL, Hawley JA. Skeletal muscle adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day endurance training regimens. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2008, 105(5):1462–1470. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90882.2008
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Stanley J, Peake JM, Buchheit M. Cardiac parasympathetic reactivation following exercise: implications for training prescription. Sports Medicine, 2013, 43(12):1259–1277. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0083-4
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Yang K, Xia Y, Filipa Silva A. Repeated sprint training induces prolonged residual fatigue compared to other high-intensity interval training modalities in middle-distance runners. Biology of Sport, 2026, 43:631–645. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2026.156227 (The authors declare no conflict of interest.)
  27. ↑ Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Medicine, 2010, 40(3):189–206. doi:10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000
  28. ↑ Kiely J. Block periodization: new horizon, or a false dawn? (Letter on Issurin 2010.) Sports Medicine, 2010, 40(9):803–807. Repository record.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Bosak A, Bishop P, Green JM, Hawver G, Iosia M. Comparison of 5km running performance after 24 and 72 hours of passive recovery. The Sport Journal, 2009 (published online 5 October 2009). No funding statement on the page.
  30. ↑ Riazati S, Caplan N, Matabuena M, Hayes PR. Gait and neuromuscular changes are evident in some masters club level runners 24-h after interval training run. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2022, 4:830278. doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.830278
  31. ↑ Casado A, González-Mohíno F, González-Ravé JM, Foster C. Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly trained and elite distance runners: a systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, 17(6):820–833. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0435
  32. ↑ Casado A, Foster C, Bakken M, Tjelta LI. Does lactate-guided threshold interval training within a high-volume low-intensity approach represent the "next step" in the evolution of distance running training? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023, 20(5):3782. doi:10.3390/ijerph20053782 (No external funding; co-author Bakken originated the model.)
  33. ↑ Daniels J. Sample running program. Excerpt from Daniels' Running Formula, 4th edition, Human Kinetics. (Coaching book, not research.)
  34. ↑ Daniels J. Article on organizing quality training in race weeks. VDOT O2 news. (Coaching article, not research.)
  35. ↑ Active.com. 6 tips to expand your training schedule. Quotes coaches Deena Kastor and Greg McMillan. (Magazine article, not research.)
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Stöggl TL, Blumkaitis JC, Strepp T, Sareban M, Simon P, Neuberger EWI, Finkenzeller T, Nunes N, Aglas L, Haller N. The Salzburg 10/7 HIIT shock cycle study: the effects of a 7-day high-intensity interval training shock microcycle with or without additional low-intensity training on endurance performance, well-being, stress and recovery in endurance trained athletes — study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2022, 14:84. doi:10.1186/s13102-022-00456-8
  37. ↑ Dolci F, Kilding AE, Chivers P, Piggott B, Hart NH. High-intensity interval training shock microcycle for enhancing sport performance: a brief review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2020, 34(4):1188–1196. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003499
  38. ↑ Rosenblat MA, Lin E, da Costa BR, Thomas SG. Programming interval training to optimize time-trial performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 2021, 51(8):1687–1714. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01457-2
  39. ↑ Spiering BA, Mujika I, Sharp MA, Foulis SA. Maintaining physical performance: the minimal dose of exercise needed to preserve endurance and strength over time. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2021. PMID:33629972
  40. ↑ Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1998, 30(7):1164–1168. PMID:9662690
Retrieved from "https://fellrnr.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Supercompensation&oldid=12696"