Monitoring Training Loads

Transcription

1 Monitoring Training Loads Where Do We Go From Here Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Professor of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La Crosse USA Visiting Professor of Human Movement Science Vrije Universiteit-Amsterdam The Netherlands

2 The Essence of Training Milo of Crotona Persistent farm boy Strongest man in the world 6x Olympic Champion Great Military Leader Progression of Exercise Training

3 Premise: Milo Must Have Had an Advisor

4 Training Monitoring is About Optimizing the Coach-Athlete Interface

5 The Coach Usually Knows Where they Want to Go Are the Athletes Following the Plan? Does the Plan Need to be Modified? Are the Athletes Improving?

6 The Coach Has to Have a Method of Measuring Progress Are They on the Right Path to the Goal? Standard Elements of Training In the laboratory?

7 Monitoring: What Do Coaches Need? We are Good at: Athletic potential Is this a top athlete, or just someone who wants to try hard? Standard environment It s always Calgary in the lab We are NOT Good at: High frequency assessment Ability to make day - day or week - week decisions about modifying training program Deciding about modifying training Coaches won t wait 3 weeks for results Minimal disruption to the training program Testing should not cause the athlete to miss training

8 The Most Important Thing that is Done Well in the Laboratory Seeing the Athlete Under Full Effort, Up Close The goal of the lab and of training monitoring is to give the athlete a better informed coach

9 The Past: The Children of Milo Paavo Nurmi & H Kolehamineni Carrying stopwatch in training: Pacing or monitoring standard workouts? Gosta Holmer Fartlek Training Gunnar Haag: Time for standard segments? vs Very hard effort in a good environment? External Training Load

10 The Past: To Monitor Training You Need Standard Conditions Gundar Haag Cinder tracks deteriorate Wind Rain Temperature Arne Andersen Snow conditions Wind Temperature External load depends on conditions Ice condition Wind Temperature

11 Come on guys, this was our fastest kilometer so far External Training Load?

12 Heart Rate Beginning of the Scientific Paradigm: Interval Training x 60s/120s: HR=180/ Failure to recover to 120 = end the workout Only 9 repetitions completed Monitoring of HR recovery gives a criteria for prematurely terminating workout Gerschler & Reindell Time (min) External/Internal Training Load

13 Interval Training: Precision Training? 1939 Heart Rate x 60s/120s: HR=180/120 Failure to recover to 120 = end the workout Only 9 repetitions completed Monitoring of HR recovery gives a criteria for prematurely terminating workout Time (min) 18 beats in 6 sec 30 beats in 10 sec? Stability of post-exercise HR Internal Training Load Average time for workouts 10 x 400m on 3:00 External Training Load

14 Seconds per Lap The Champion Coaches Index Workouts Frantz Stampfl Bill Bowerman Roger Banister 1954 Progression 10 x 400 on 3:00 Hiking Vacation Hard days vs easy days Long distance jogging Date pace vs goal pace October 1953 May Month External Training Load

15 First Point of the Talk Monitoring Works Better with Standard Conditions and Standard Workouts Frequently Applied

16 Monitoring = Better Technology Makes it Better? 85% x 60s/120s: HR=180/120 85% % %HRR Failure to recover to 120 = end the workout Time (min) Where did 180 and 120 come from? Threshold concepts

17 Early 1980 s: Monitoring Goes Portable More Accurate, Faster, Metabolic

18 The Present: The Lactate Profile

19 Seeing the Workout in Terms of Zones How do you evaluate different training Is there more value to harder training?

20 Standard Evaluation Conditions? Recovery Before Evaluation vs Missing Training? RPE=6 RPE=9 This chick is toast C Foster et al. Int J Sports Med 9: , 1988

21 Second Point of Talk More Technological is Good for Testing Hypotheses Is More Technological Good For Coaching?

22 Linking Training Response to Performance Change: TRIMPS Internal Training Load Grows Up Eric W. Banister, Ph.D. TW Calvert et al. A systems model of the effects of training on physical performance Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 6: , EW Banister et al. Modeling the training responses Olympic Scientific Congress: Sport & Elite Performers, Champaign, Human Kinetics, RH Morton et al. Modeling human performance in running J Appl Physiol 69: , 1990 JR Fitz-Clarke et al. Optimizing athletic performance by influence curves. J Appl Physiol 71: , 1991.

23 The Problems With TRIMPS Based on data from non-athletes Based on essentially steady state training Based on % HRR Needs laboratory calibration Needs non-linear modification Depends on HR as physiological monitor Computationally complex

24 The Big Problem With TRIMPS

25 Modifications of TRIMPS Solving the weaknesses of %HRR and Steady State Exercise % HRR Time (min) HR Zone 3=80%HRmax=70%HRR Zone 2=73%HRmax=60%HRR Zone Time (min) Zone 1=46 min=77% Zone 2=2 min=3% Zone 3=12 min=20% TRIMPs=46*1 + 2*2 + 12*3= = 86 C Foster et al. J Strength Cond Res 15: , 2001 Banister lite

26 HR With Speed Skaters?

27 Making Eric Banister Understandable & Practical the Session RPE Method Wow, that was hard The coach almost killed us, we ran, and ran, and ran C Foster et al. Effects of specific versus cross training on running performance Eur J Appl Physiol 70: , 1995

28 Making Banister Understandable & Practical C Foster et al. Effects of specific versus cross training on running performance Eur J Appl Physiol 70: , 1995

29 Session RPE & Training Monotony Lead to Explanations srpe vs HR Zones C Foster J Strength Cond Res 15: , 2001 The Good C Foster Wisc Med J 95: , 1996 C Foster Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: , 1998 The Bad

30 The Present: Session RPE is Robust Across Modes of Activity srpe C Foster et al. J Strength Cond Res 15: , 2001

31 Third Point of Talk Hypothesis testing: more complex is better Coaching: simpler is better

32 The Coaches Big Dilemma Follow the Planned Training? Modify the Planned Training? My HR is pretty high. I must still be cooked from yesterdays training

33 Do Athletes Even Do What Coaches Prescribe? Skaters Training LOAD (Session RPE * Duration) Coach Athlete Easy Moderate Hard C Foster S Afri J Sports Med 8: 3-7, 2001 J Rodriguez-Marroyo J Strength Cond Res 26: , 2014

34 HR Can You Use the Warm-Up to Modify the Training Plan? 200 PWC 170 P Haber Acta Med Austriaca Power Output (W)

35 Can You Use the Warm-Up to Modify the Training Plan? C Foster In M Lehmann editor: Overload, Performance Incompetence and Regeneration in Sports, Kluwer, NY. 1999

36 Can You Use the Warm-Up to Modify the Training Plan? RP Lamberts Br J Sports Med 45: , 2011

37 The Present: HR & RPE During Warm Up? J Rodriguez-Marroyo Int J Sports Physiol Perf (In Press 2016)

38 Coach, I don t feel so hot, I need a day off Ok, warm-up and let s see how you feel Monitoring to help coaches with program modification 1) Ok, take a shower, go home, get some food, get some sleep 2) Quit whining, get out there and do the workout

39 4 th Point of the Talk Answer the coaches practical questions Simply and Quickly Don t be confusing

40 What Does the Future Hold? Biometric Sensors: Eric Banister Reborn

41 The Future: Training Load & Distribution Is There a Single Expression for Training Load? That Accounts for Both Load and Distribution? Performance Load vs Performance C Foster et al Wisc Med J 95: , Training Load Load (Volume x Intensity) Percent of Training Time Skiers Cyclists Elite Runners Sub Elite Runners Training Zone Distribution S Seiler Int J Sports Physiol Perf 5: , 2010 J Esteve-Lanao et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: , 2005 A Lucia et al. Int J Sports Med 20: VL Billat et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: ,2001 V Manzi et al. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 10: , 2015

42 Training Time (min) Improvement (%) Load The Future : Merging Training Distribution & Monotony Training Load & Variability vs Performance Exercise Load Training Load Days Load Performance Days High vs Low Glycogen Training Performance High Low Fitness Athletic Paleolithic Days High vs Low Glycogen Improvement High Low G Bruin JAP 76: , 1994 C Foster MSSE 30: , 1998 AK Hansen JAP 98: 93-99, 2005 WH Yeo JAP 105: , 2008 D Boullosa Sports Med 43: , 2013 Training monotony (x/sd within a week) is a quantitative expression of hard-days vs easy days Does it do more than predict training maladaptations? Pmax Endurance

43 How Do Monotony and Training Distribution Interact? The Future: Training Load & Distribution Is There a Single Expression for Training Load? Training Load & Variability vs Performance Performance Load vs Performance C Foster et al Wisc Med J 95: , Training Load Percent of Training Time Skiers Cyclists Elite Runners Sub Elite Runners Training Zone Training Load Days Load Performance Performance Load (Volume x Intensity) Distribution S Seiler Int J Sports Physiol Perf 5: , 2010 J Esteve-Lanao et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: , 2005 A Lucia et al. Int J Sports Med 20: VL Billat et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: ,2001 V Manzi et al. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 10: , Days Monotony = weekly load/sd 90 Hard days can be long duration x moderate intensity or short duration x high intensity Monotony implies hard days vs easy days TID & MONOTONY are different multipliers of training LOAD

44 The Future : Fitness Fatigue Revisited Can We Find a Quantitative Expression for Tapering and Overreaching? Training vs Performance ?? Overreaching Normal Training Training Load Overtraining Syndrome

45 Unified Field Theory Performance = Load x Distribution x Monotony x Taper

46 The Future: Linking Research Studies to Competitive Reality Study Time Base & Athlete Quality

47 The Future: Better Understanding of Homeostatic Disturbance (training) vs Gene Expression Leading to Protein Synthesis (improved performance) --What to monitor-- Signaling Translation GH/ILGF Transcription Testosterone Translational Research: Test Tube to Track

48 We ve Done it: Better Understanding of Homeostatic Disturbance (training) vs Gene Expression Leading to Protein Synthesis (improved performance) Training Load Level 4 athletes Observational study of spontaneous training & performance 6 month observational period 10 km cycle time trial 10% C Foster Wisc Med J 95: , x

49 We ve Done it: Better Understanding of Homeostatic Disturbance (training) vs Gene Expression Leading to Protein Synthesis (improved performance) Training Intensity Distribution Level 3-4 runners Randomly assigned to low (80/10/10) vs high intensity (65/25/10) Total TRIMPS (HR) equalized 5 month intervention -157 s s J Esteve-Lanao J Strength Cond Res 21: , 2007

50 We ve Done it: Better Understanding of Homeostatic Disturbance (training) vs Gene Expression Leading to Protein Synthesis (improved performance) Hard day vs Easy day (glycogen level vs monotony) Level 3-4 cyclists Randomly assigned to 6 days/week or 3 days x 2 training/week 3 week intervention Matched training load Not significant between groups! 2%=+16 Watts 16 Watts=+270 m in 60 min WK Yeo J Appl Physiol 105: , 2008

51 We ve Done it: Better Understanding of Homeostatic Disturbance (training) vs Gene Expression Leading to Protein Synthesis (improved performance) Periodization of HIIT Level 4 Cyclists Randomized to different interval training periodization schemes 12 weeks intervention following standardized pre-intervention LIT O Sylta Med Sci Sports Exerc doi /mss

52 What About Lab Testing Of Athletes? Too infrequent to be useful to coaches Too non specific to be useful to coaches Too long of a feedback loop to be useful to coaches Interferes with training Gives scientists concentrated lesion in the sport Gives scientists and coaches a format to talk in a comfortable idiom Selects for scientists smart enough to listen when coaches ask questions Creates the substrate for systematically testing hypotheses with non-elite athletes to mprove fundamental understanding of the sport Mike Woods, 1979

53 5 th Point of the Talk: Training Monitoring: The Goal is to Improve this Person s Intuition & Judgement Everything Else is a Bonus

54 Training Monitoring: Summary 1. Monitoring Requires Standard Conditions 2. Nature Boy Training vs Standard Workouts 3. The Lab is Well Suited to Let the Coach Look into the Athletes Eyes at Full Effort 4. Complex Technology=Scientific Discovery, Simple Technology=Coaching 5. Coaches Need to Ask the Questions, Scientists Need to Answer the Questions 6. Sub Elite Athletes are Effective Was to Answer Science Based Questions 7. Lab Testing With Elite Athletes Gives Coaches and Scientists a Format to Talk

55 Thank You A Cat Named Chicken Production