Overtraining syndrome: how to minimise the impact

In my previous article (SIB 16), I considered the contribution that non-training stress may play in the development of the overtraining syndrome. Although acknowledging the contribution of training stress in the development of the syndrome, I presented evidence to support the suggestion that the overtraining syndrome may be a response to an accumulation of both training and non-training stressors (eg, Kentta and Hassmen, 1998; Meehan et al., 2003).

For example, in my recent study (Meehan, 2000), all five athletes that had been diagnosed with the overtraining syndrome experienced some form of non-training stress prior to their symptoms presenting. Each athlete described this non-training stress to have caused them varying amounts of stress at the time. Interestingly, none of the athletes reported a significant increase in their training load in the six-month period leading up to their symptoms presenting. Although further investigations are required, findings such as this suggest that the overtraining syndrome may be a response to an accumulation of both training and non-training stress, where an athlete’s ability to adapt to his/her normal training regimen has been compromised. Such findings have a number of implications for practice which should be considered when working with competing athletes. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to follow on from that written previously and to provide some practical guidance on how best to minimise cases of the overtraining syndrome.

Obvious steps

Before considering how we might practically take into account the factor of non-training stress when trying to minimise the ill effects of the overtraining syndrome, there are a number of obvious steps that should be considered when working with competing athletes. Without doubt, one of the most important factors in the prevention of the overtraining syndrome is for coaches to ensure that the training programme is well structured (Lehmann et al., 1993). Training programmes should provide athletes with an appropriate balance between training stress and recovery. Unfortunately, however, the recovery process is frequently overlooked as the ‘more is better’ myth often takes priority (Meyers and Whelan, 1998).

The recovery process is one of the most important aspects of a training programme as it is when adaptation is reported to take place. If sufficient attention is not given to the recovery and adaptation process, then the body will have little time to adapt to the training stress imposed upon it and the ill effects of overtraining may be difficult for an athlete to avoid. A further consideration that should be taken into account when devising a training programme is to recognise that individual differences exist with regard to training-load tolerance. Athletes are able to tolerate different levels of training and may also require different lengths of recovery. Therefore, a training programme that has led to an optimal performance for one athlete may lead to the demise of another. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that training programmes are individualised as far as possible (Meehan, 2002). Unfortunately, despite numerous studies being carried out in an attempt to identify reliable physiological markers that indicate when an athlete is unable to tolerate the training load, a single consistent marker has not yet been identified (Hooper et al., 1995). As a result of such inconsistencies, it is recognised that being able to confidently devise a training programme that optimises an athlete’s performance, while at the same time avoiding the devastating effects of the overtraining syndrome, is an ongoing problem for many coaches.

Non-training stressors

In addition to ensuring that athletes have both individualised and well structured training programmes, non-training stressors should also be considered when working with competing athletes. Traditionally, training programmes have taken a narrow view of the athlete, simply considering him/her in terms of their training and competitive schedules. Little consideration has been given to the non-sport environment in which an athlete must operate on a daily basis. The importance of considering this aspect of an athlete’s existence is paramount if we consider the role that non-training stress may play in the development of the overtraining syndrome. Rather than leaving it unrecognised, coaches must consider modifying their athletes’ training loads during times in which they are experiencing non-training stress. For example, to name but a few, examinations, the birth of a child and relationship difficulties.

If training loads are modified, athletes may then be able to accommodate the accumulation of stress that they are experiencing, ensuring that their ability to adapt is not compromised. It must be stressed that modifications to the training load must take place even if such training loads have optimised performance in the past. The athlete may not have been experiencing such non-sport stress when the training load in question led to optimal performances (Meehan, 2002).

The role of sport psychologists

In order to ensure that the non-sport environment in which an athlete exists is considered and understood when planning his/her training programme, it is suggested that experts such as a sport psychologist become more involved in developing and monitoring training programmes with coaches. This may ensure that unique training programmes are designed for athletes following a thorough consideration of them and their day-to-day existence (Meyers and Whelan, 1998). Furthermore, coaches and athletes alike may be more likely to consider modifying training programmes if the monitoring process indicates that an athlete is experiencing non-training stress at any point during his/her athletic career (Meehan et al., 2003).

As well as aiding in the monitoring process, the sport psychologist may be able to help athletes gauge the degree of non-sport stress that they may be experiencing and provide them with appropriate intervention strategies so as to limit the stress from accumulating unnecessarily. There are a number of intervention strategies that a sport psychologist might consider, and as with any training programme the strategies employed will be those that are most suitable for the athlete in question. However, it has been suggested that the most effective prevention efforts might be those that enable an athlete to appropriately manage his or her stress levels (Meyers and Whelan, 1998). For example, for some athletes it may be appropriate to educate them on appropriate coping strategies and stress reduction techniques when dealing with the multiple contexts that they operate within (Meehan et al., 2003).

And finally

A final piece of advice for any coach who is trying to optimise athletic performance and thus minimise the development of the overtraining syndrome is to ensure that athletes listen to their bodies. An athlete’s body is the most useful tool for detecting maladaptations to the training load. Suppressed athletic performances and/or complaints of other symptoms indicative of the overtraining syndrome that do not usually occur in response to training may indicate that the athlete is not tolerating the training load. At such times, modifications should be made to the training programme in response to such symptoms in an attempt to facilitate adaptation (Meehan, 2002).

Heidi Meehan

References

1. Hooper, S.L., Mackinnon, L.T., Howard, A., Gordon, R.D. and Bachmann, A.W. (1995). Markers for monitoring overtraining and recovery. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27, 106-112.
2. Kentta, G., & Hassmen, P. (1998). Overtraining and recovery: A conceptual model. Sports Medicine, 26, 25-39.
3. Lehmann, M., Foster, C., & Keul, J. (1993). Overtraining in endurance athletes: A brief review. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 25, 854-862.
4. Meehan, H.L. (2000). The overtraining syndrome: A multi-contextual assessment. Unpublished MPhil Thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
5. Meehan, H.L. (2002). The overtraining syndrome. The Coach, 9, 41-46.
6. Meehan, H.L., Bull, S.J., Wood, D.M. and James, D.V.B. (2003). The overtraining syndrome: A multi-contextual assessment. The Sport Psychologist. In press.
7. Meyers, A.W., & Whelan, J.P. (1998). A multisystemic model for understanding psychosocial influences in overtraining. In R.B. Krieder., A.C. Fry, & M.L. O’Toole (Eds.), Overtraining in sport (pp. 335-369). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.