Overtraining? (Was: Definition of Intensity?)

[Guest guest]

I would like to comment on the over-training. IMO, it is almost

impossible to overtrain. You can over-reach (short term - trying to do

too much with being adapted), but what is thought of as overtraining is

almost always under-restoration and/or improper sequencing of the workload.

How many wrestlers actively think of restoration and factor in

restorative means to training. Very few. The other thing is the proper

cycling of volume and 'intensity'. The point is - there is a place for

40 m sprints, 400 m sprints and 1,000 m sprints in much athletic

training. Sure you can't run as hard at 1,000, but that isn't the point.

Otherwise nobody would run further than 60-80 m, right?

Yes, most wrestlers are over-trained, but it is because before big meets

they do not allow for tapering and " superadaptation " to take place. They

are over-coached, but it is just because of timing. If they would stop

three weeks earlier and taper into the meet they wouldn't be

overtrained. IMO it is not a matter of volume, but timing.

[Mod: The below information is relevant:

European Journal of Sport Science, March 2006; 6(1): 1/14:

Many recent papers have referred to the work of

Kreider et al. (1998) for the definitions of OT and

OR.

/ Overreaching: an accumulation of training and/

or non-training stress resulting in short-term

decrement in performance capacity with or

without related physiological and psychological

signs and symptoms of maladaptation in which

restoration of performance capacity may take

from several days to several weeks.

/ Overtraining: an accumulation of training and/

or non-training stress resulting in long-term

decrement in performance capacity with or

without related physiological and psychological

signs and symptoms of maladaptation in which

restoration of performance capacity may take

several weeks or months.

As stated by several authors (Lehmann et al.,

1999a; Budgett et al., 2000; Halson & Jeukendrup,

2004) these definitions suggest that the difference

between OT and OR is the amount of time needed

for performance restoration and not the type or

duration of training stress or degree of impairment.

These definitions also imply that there may be an

absence of psychological signs associated with the

conditions. As it is possible to recover from a state of

OR within a 2-week period (Lehmann et al., 1999a;

Halson et al., 2002; Jeukendrup et al., 1992; Kreider

et al., 1998; Steinacker et al., 2000), it may be

argued that this condition is a relatively normal and

harmless stage of the training process.......

OR is often utilized by athletes during a typical

training cycle to enhance performance. Intensified

training can result in a decline in performance;

however, when appropriate periods of recovery are

provided, a ‘‘supercompensation’’ effect may occur

with the athlete exhibiting an enhanced performance

when compared to baseline levels. This process is

often used when going on a training camp, and will

lead to a temporary performance decrement, which

is followed by improved performance. In this situation,

the physiological responses will compensate the

training-related stress (Steinacker et al., 2004). This

form of short-term OR can also be called ‘‘functional

OR’’. When this intensified training continues, the

athletes can evolve into a state of extreme OR or

‘‘non-functional OR’’, that will lead to a stagnation

or decrease in performance which will not resume for

several weeks or months. However, eventually these

athletes will be able to fully recover after sufficient

rest. ‘‘Non-functional OR’’ emphasizes that the

evolution on the ‘‘OT continuum’’ is not only

‘‘quantitatively’’ determined (i.e. by the increase in

training volume) but that also ‘‘qualitative’’ changes

occur (e.g. signs and symptoms of psychological and/

or endocrine distress).

In these

definitions ‘‘overtraining’’ is used as a verb, a process

of intensified training with possible outcomes of

short-term overreaching (functional OR); extreme

overreaching (non-functional OR); or OTS. By

using the expression ‘‘syndrome’’ we emphasize the

multifactorial etiology and acknowledge that exercise

(training) is not necessarily the sole causative factor

of the syndrome.]

Rob Barrese wrote:

> Nick I'm not sure. Intensity is such an intrinsic quality that it is

> often hard to put words to. This began over the statement " you can

> work long or you can work hard, you can't work both. " I can sprint

> 400m but I cannot sprint the same 1000m... I can go all out during a

> single wrestling meet or I can wrestle my partner for 60 straight

> minutes during practice. The later would be considered conditioning

> within the sport to the wrestling community.

>

> I am not sure how sees this? I know (from personal experience)

> that wrestlers often get the rep of being " intense, 24/7, " but when

> you look closely at the quality of what you are getting over time it

> is not the same. I refer back to the previous examples. In actuality

> if I refer back to my wrestling career I recall trying very hard to

> maintain intensity, only to have my intensity gradually drop and my

> form steadily decrease. It would be physiologically impossible to

> duplicate the intensity of a single match for 60

> straight minutes without rest. And what wrestler would not look back

> over their career and not consider the fact most of the time we over

> trained?

> Just my thoughts and feelings as an ex-wrestler/grappler and my

> experience training wrestlers.

>

> Rob Barrese

> PA, USA

>

>

--

Hobman

Saskatoon, CANADA