When athletes enter a competitive season, it is common practice to decrease training volume, frequency, and intensity in the gym as the demands of the sport increase. Naturally, this is programmed into an annual plan as a “maintenance block” or “in-season training”. The goal of this period of training for many athletes and teams is to do the bare minimum and “survive” the demands of the competitive season. On the other hand, more elite athletes and teams will capitalize on the situation and aim to physically develop and “thrive” throughout the competition season. Unfortunately, the implementation of this style of training is still vague for many sports and athletes. This vagueness comes from the unique physical and logistical demands of each team, sport and athlete. These demands include but are not limited to travel requirements, competition fatigue, individual needs and practice times. Understanding how to successfully navigate these obstacles takes an appreciation of the basic principles of training, the general adaptation syndrome and periodization. Successfully understanding and applying these concepts can be the difference between optimizing performance or causing too much fatigue and doing more harm than good. This article aims to provide some practical advice and a logical approach to in-season training through shared experiences and a review of the literature.
The key fundamental principles of training are specificity, progression, overload (including frequency, intensity, time, and type), reversibility and tedium. These are often described as the S.P.O.R.T principles (1)(2). Collectively, these principles help promote adaptation which is the body's ability to respond and change in response to an exercise stimulus. For this article, I would like to highlight the principles of overload and reversibility. As the name suggests, the overload principle can be described as safely overloading the body or doing more work than normal. This overload stimulates the body to adapt and yield performance gains specific to the stimulus placed upon it. The variables that underpin this principle are frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise more commonly called the F.I.T.T principles. Simply put, if you progressively introduce more volume (sets x reps) you will eventually be able to handle that volume without being as fatigued the same goes for exercise intensity. If the overload principle is not satisfied, we then have the principle of reversibility. This principle states that if physical training is stopped the body will regress or reverse the beneficial adaptations of training. Essentially, if you stop training your body will return to its pre-training state. Somewhere in-between these two adaptations we have the concept of maintenance training. Perform enough work to stimulate your body to adapt but not so much that you become sore and fatigued. A critical question then is what is the least amount of work you can do that will maintain your hard-earned gains? Research suggests that if training is completely stopped it can take up to 9 weeks to see significant reductions (up to 12% loss) in muscle function. Furthermore, reducing training frequency by as much as two-thirds however maintaining intensity was sufficient to maintain muscle function for up to 18 weeks (2). With this understanding, It should come as no surprise that low-volume, high-intensity maintenance training is a very common approach for in-season training. Furthermore, in combination with proper periodization concerning the general adaptation syndrome, higher-level athletes and coaches can manipulate this style of training to not only maintain but optimize performance by increasing strength and reducing fatigue.
The general adaptation syndrome (GAS) was first published in the 1950s by Canadian physiologist Hans Selye (3). It has since evolved and modified to provide an instructional framework for the mechanical process of inducing stress to elicit a specific response and adaptation for physiological enhancements. Simply put, it attempts to explain the body's response to the stress of training. Other models have been adapted from this theory and attempt to explain this response such as the fitness fatigue model or the supercompensation model but for this article, we will elaborate on the GAS. This model is comprised of three stages or responses to training, the alarm, resistance, and exhaustion phase. The alarm phase describes the first response to acute stress (exercise) where a slight amount of fatigue occurs. Secondarily, the resistance phase occurs where the body adapts to the stress stimulus (with adequate recovery) and yields gains. Lastly, the exhaustive phase occurs when the body is exposed to stress for too long and begins to shut down. To simplify, the right amount of stress can lead to positive adaptations such as strength gains whereas too much can lead to negative adaptations such as fatigue. Please see picture 1 for an illustration of GAS.
Picture 1.
Image Source: sanescohealth.com
This concept highlights the importance of planned recovery throughout a training week. If the body is constantly stressed or “overtrained” it will stay in a state of fatigue however if proper recovery is had, then positive adaptations can and will occur. Picture 2 illustrates this concept which is considered the backbone of many periodization models.
Picture 2.
Image Source: equestic.com
Lastly, we have the concept of periodization. Periodization has been around for many years and was first popularized by the Russian physiologist Leo Matveyv based on his understanding of GAS and long-term planning (5). The concept has since evolved with varying submodels such as linear, block and undulating periodization. Periodization can be defined as the planned manipulation of training variables to maximize training adaptations and prevent overtraining. By understanding the basic principles of training and how our body responds to a training stimulus we can then begin to effectively periodize and optimize our training week.
A common method of training adapted from these concepts is the “High-Low Method” popularised by world-renowned sprint coach Charlie Francis. The high-low method breaks up training into high-intensity days (high stress) and low-intensity days (low stress). This method provides an opportunity for within-week recovery to occur on low-intensity days. A critical question then is how long does it take our body to recover from a high-intensity session? Research suggests that depending on the amount of stress inflicted it can take up to 24-72 hours to fully recover from a training session depending on many variables such as training age, nutrition, and type of exercise (4). This highlights the importance of placing training sessions 1-3 days before competition or even after the competition. Ultimately, all these concepts must be taken into consideration when designing a training week.
For a practical example of how to structure a training week, let's use the example of an Ice Hockey team that practices Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then plays 2 games, one on Friday and the other on Saturday. Using the high-low method, we would want to structure our training week to make sure our high days are high, and our low days are low. Please see Table 1 for an example of an ideal training week.
Table 1.
Day | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
Sport Demand | OFF | Hard Practice | Medium Practice | Light Practice | Road Game | Home Game | Active Recovery |
Training Demand | Rest | Hard Lift | Medium Lift | Travel | Post Game Travel | Post Game Lift | Active Recovery |
Stress Response | Low | High | Medium | Low-Medium | High | High | Low |
Structuring the training week like this allows us to gain 3 lifts without hindering on-ice performance while having three lower stress days to optimize recovery. This is enough volume and intensity to not only maintain fitness but to provide a safe and effective overload for a positive adaptation. Additionally, this approach is more sustainable for a long season as opposed to a no days off approach or a lift and or practice everyday approach where overtraining and fatigue are likely to occur. Placing the biggest lift earlier in the week allows for plenty of recovery before the first competition (72 hrs). Tapering the stress response before the game also allows the players to go into the competition fully recovered (High-Medium-Low-Game). Unfortunately, the reality for most athletes and teams is that a schedule as simple as this is not realistic due to the demands of travel or team logistical demands such as charity events or volunteering. Please see Table 2 for an example of a more chaotic training week with three games, two of which are on the road at different locations.
Table 2.
Day | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
Sport Demand | Travel | Road Game | OFF | Light Practice | Home Game | Travel | Road Game |
Training Demand | Post Travel Active Recovery | Post Game Travel Home | Rest | Active Recovery | Post Game Lift | Post Travel Active Recovery | Post Game Travel Home |
Stress Response | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | Medium | High |
With a demanding schedule such as the one shown in Table 2 using the high-low method, we can still optimize recovery and maintain our strength and fitness levels. This is achieved through capitalizing on a post-game big lift after the competition at home on Friday. This structure allows for 48 hours to recover from the main lift on Friday while prioritizing recovery on the other days of the week. Without prioritizing training the staff and or athlete could be doing more harm than good.
In addition to the principle of reversibility the longer you go in-between training sessions, specifically high-intensity training sessions the greater the chance of muscle soreness and fatigue from the next training session. For example, using the schedule from Table 2. Many athletes and coaches might be tempted to opt-out of a workout post-game on Friday after a long week of travel or perhaps the decision could be influenced by the team's performance. Either way, If this were the case then the team would go at least 7 days in-between lifts which is a considerable amount of time making the next training session that much more difficult. Without carefully using the concept of periodization we can see how easy it is for teams to sometimes go weeks or even months without training or perhaps overtraining and ultimately decreasing their performance.
In conclusion, manipulating all the variables of a training week takes knowledge and experience and overlaps the fields of strength and conditioning and sports science. As a result, the appraised value of in-season training is often dependent on how well it is executed and monitored by the strength and conditioning coach or in some cases the athletic therapist. Many sports coaches have negative experiences with In-season training and often view it as a distraction from sports skill work or a “waste of time and energy”. This is amplified when sports coaches dismiss weight training to reward their team with a “day off”. Although days off are valuable, the decision to devalue in-season training is likely coming from their personal negative experiences of overtraining. Yet, these are the results of poorly executed training that have caused more harm than good. With the understanding that less can be more with in-season training and that high intensity, low volume, strength, and power training can lead to enhanced athletic performance with little to no muscle soreness and in combination with prioritizing low and high days of training, I would argue that in-season training conducted and monitored properly can provide a competitive advantage and this method should be utilized by all competitive athletes.
References
1) Stone, M., Plisk, S., & Collins, D. (01.2002). Strength and conditioning training principles: Evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training ‐a coaching perspective Published by Edinburgh University Press Ltd on behalf of International Society of Biomechanics in Sp. doi:10.1080/14763140208522788
2) Romer, I. M. & Mcconnell, A. K. (2003). Specificity and Reversibility of Inspiratory Muscle Training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35 (2), 237-244. DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000048642.58419.1E.
3) Selye H. (1950). Stress and the general adaptation syndrome. British medical journal, 1(4667), 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4667.1383
4) Hakkinen, K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular
strength during short-term and prolonged training. NSCA J. 7:32–34, 1985.
5) Bompa TO. Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1994.
Comments