Adapting the Plan for Performance Optimisation
by Doug Stewart
It is well known that endurance performance requires a mix of both training and recovery to optimise results. Within various sports this mix will change, as it will with time to train, athlete experience, goals, races and a multitude of other variables.
Finding the optimal balance is difficult and part of the skill of coaching or a well-devised training plan.
However, comparing how athletes develop and respond to a standard plan or to one that is personalised is relatively difficult. We never know what the result would have been if a certain change had or had not taken place.
A recently published study tried to provide more details on the benefit or not of an individualised plan versus a general plan. I have previously written a newsletter about how adapting a training plan based on feedback from HRV may yield some performance benefits when adapting the training plan based on data.
In this recent paper, this concept is developed further, along with the other variables used to individualise the training plan.
A total of 40 recreation endurance runners (20 male and 20 female) participated in the research and were split into 2 groups. 10 runners were not included in the final research due to dropping out or poor training adherence. The training duration was 15 weeks – which is enough time for training adaptations to take place.
The first group of 14 runners were in a Predefined Training (PD) programme, whilst the other 16 were in an Individualised Training (ID) programme. The ID training programme was adapted to each individual based on their HRV, perceived recovery and heart rate data. It would see their programme decreased, maintained as per the original plan, or increased, following from this feedback.
Prior to starting the training, and then during and after the training intervention, running tests were completed. This involved a 10km running test and an incremental test on a treadmill.
Both groups improved their maximum running speed over the course of the training programme, and both groups also improved their 10km time. However, the ID improved their 10km time to a greater extent, around double the improvement in time, than the PD group.
What is interesting is that the ID group also had more ‘high responders’ to the training – i.e., those with the largest gains. In the maximum running speed test, 50% of the ID athletes versus 29% in the PD group were high responders, and 0% were low responders. In contrast, 21% of the PD group were low responders. The others were deemed ‘trivial’ with small gains.
Meanwhile, in the 10km time trial test, 81% of the ID group were high responders and 13% were low responders, whilst in the PD group 23% were high responders and 23% were low responders.
So, it is clear that, in this experiment over the 15 weeks, the likelihood of being a high responder and having greater training adaptations was linked to individualising the training plans. Whilst both groups did improve, it is evident that using data, such as HRV, coupled with subjective measures, helped increase training gains in this setting.
References:
Olli-Pekka N, Ari N, Elisa K, Keijo H, Heikki K. Individualized Endurance Training Based on Recovery and Training Status in Recreational Runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 Aug 13. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002968. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35975912.