Sports Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Overtraining and Recovery

A Conceptual Model
  • Göran KenttäEmail author
  • Peter Hassmén
Leading Article


Fiercer competition between athletes and a wider knowledge of optimal training regimens dramatically influence current training methods. A single training bout per day was previously considered sufficient, whereas today athletes regularly train twice a day or more. Consequently, the number of athletes who are overtraining and have insufficient rest is increasing.

Positive overtraining can be regarded as a natural process when the end result is adaptation and improved performance; the supercompensation principle — which includes the breakdown process (training) followed by the recovery process (rest) — is well known in sports. However, negative overtraining, causing maladaptation and other negative consequences such as staleness, can occur.

Physiological, psychological, biochemical and immunological symptoms must be considered, both independently and together, to fully understand the ’staleness’ syndrome. However, psychological testing may reveal early-warning signs more readily than the various physiological or immunological markers.

The time frame of training and recovery is also important since the consequences of negative overtraining comprise an overtraining-response continuum from short to long term effects. An athlete failing to recover within 72 hours has presumably negatively overtrained and is in an overreached state. For an elite athlete to refrain from training for >72 hours is extremely undesirable, highlighting the importance of a carefully monitored recovery process.

There are many methods used to measure the training process but few with which to match the recovery process against it. One such framework for this is referred to as the total quality recovery (TQR) process. By using a TQR scale, structured around the scale developed for ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), the recovery process can be monitored and matched against the breakdown (training) process (TQR versus RPE). The TQR scale emphasises both the athlete’s perception of recovery and the importance of active measures to improve the recovery process. Furthermore, directing attention to psychophysiological cues serves the same purpose as in RPE, i.e. increasing self-awareness.

This article reviews and conceptualises the whole overtraining process. In doing so, it (i) aims to differentiate between the types of stress affecting an athlete’s performance; (ii) identifies factors influencing an athlete’s ability to adapt to physical training; (iii) structures the recovery process. The TQR method to facilitate monitoring of the recovery process is then suggested and a conceptual model that incorporates all of the important parameters for performance gain (adaptation) and loss (maladaptation).


Adis International Limited Recovery Process Elite Athlete Training Load Breakdown Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bompa T. Theory and methodology of training: the key to athletic performance. Dubuque (IA): Kendall/Hunt, 1983Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raglin JS. Overtraining and staleness: psychometric monitoring of endurance athletes. In. Singer RB, Murphey B, Tennant LK, editors. Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York (NY): Macmillan, 1993; 840–50Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lehman M, Foster C, Keul J. Overtraining in endurance athletes: a brief review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 26: 854–61Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuipers H, Keizer HA. Overtraining in elite athletes: review and directions for the future. Sports Med 1988; 6: 79–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budgett R. Overtraining syndrome. Br J Sports Med 1990; 24: 231–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morgan WP, Brown DR, Raglin JS, et al. Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness. Br J Sports Med 1987; 21: 107–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fry RW, Morton AR, Keast D. Overtraining in athletes: an update. Sports Med 1991; 12: 32–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hooper SL, Mackinnon LT, Howard A, et al. Markers for monitoring overtraining and recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 106–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fry AC, Kraemer WJ. Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching: neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med 1997; 23: 106–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maslach C. Burned-out. Hum Behav 1976; 5: 16–22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith RE. Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. J Sport Psychol 1986; 8: 36–50Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fry RW, Grove JR, Morton AR, et al. Psychological and immunological correlates of acute overtraining. Br J Sports Med 1994; 28: 241–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Borselen FV, et al. Performance decrements with high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 1165–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marion A. Overtraining and sport performance. Coaches Report 1995; 2: 12–9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mackinnon LT, Hooper S. Mucosal (secretory) immune system response to exercise of varying intensity and during overtraining. Int J Sports Med 1994; 15: 179–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeukendrup AE, Hesslink MKC, Snyder AC, et al. Physiological changes in male competitive cyclists after two weeks of intensified training. Int J Sports Med 1992; 13: 534–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuipers H. How much is too much? Performance aspects of overtraining. Res Q Exerc Sport 1996; 67 Suppl. 3: 65–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan WP. Psychological components of effort sense. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 1071–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hooper SL, Mackinnon LT. Monitoring overtraining in athletes: recommendations. Sports Med 1995; 20: 321–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shephard RJ, Shek PN. Potential impact of physical acitivity and sport on the immune system: a brief review. Br J Sports Med 1994; 28: 347–55Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raglin JS, Eksten F, Garl T. Mood state responses to a preseason conditioning program in male collegiate basketball players. Int J Sport Psychol 1995; 26: 214–25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Connor PJ. Overtraining and staleness. In. Morgan WP, editor. Physical activity and mental health. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis, 1998: 145–60Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hooper SL, Mackinnon LT, Hanrahan S. Mood states as an indication of staleness and recovery. Int J Sport Psychol 1997; 28: 1–12Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berglund B, Säfström H. Psychological monitoring and modulation of training load of world-class canoeists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 1036–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Connor PJ, Morgan WP, Raglin JS. Psychobiologic effects of 3 days of increased training in female and male swimmers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23: 1055–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Snyder AC, Jeukendrup AE, Hesslink MKC, et al. A physiological/ psychological indicator of over-reaching during intensive training. Int J Sports Med 1993; 14: 29–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raglin JS, Morgan WP. Development of a scale for use in monitoring training-induced distress in athletes. Int J Sports Med 1994; 15: 84–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morgan WP, Costill DL, Flynn MG, et al. Mood disturbance following increased training in swimmers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988; 20: 408–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kallus KW. Recovery-stress-questionnaire: manual. Würzburg: University of Würzburg, 1995Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costill DL, Flynn MG, Kriwan JP, et al. Effects of repeated days of intensified training on muscle glycogen and swimming performance. Med Sci Sport Exerc 1988; 20: 249–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verde T, Tomas S, Shephard RJ. Potential markers of heavy training in highly trained distance runners. Br J Sports Med 1992; 26: 167–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harre D. Principles of sport training. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1982Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viru A. The mechanism of training effects: a hypothesis. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5: 219–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Borg G. Physical performance and perceived exertion [dissertation]. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1962Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med 1970; 2: 92–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martens R, Vealey R, Burton D. Competetive anxiety in sport. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1990Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harre D. Trainingslehre. Berlin, Germany: Sportverlag, 1973Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Israel S. Zür problematic des übertrainings aus internistischer und leistungsphysiologicher sicht. Medizin Sport 1976; 16: 1–12Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kinderman W. Das übertraining-ausdruck einer vegitativen fehlsteuerung. Z Sportmedizin 1986; H8: 138–45Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brooks GA, Fahey TD. Exercise physiology: human bioenergetics and its applications. New York (NY): Macmillan, 1985Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taylor SR, Rogers GG, Driver HS. Effects of training volume on sleep, psychological, and selected physiological profiles of elite female swimmers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 688–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uneståhl L-E. Integrerad mental träning (Integrated mental training) [Swedish]. Malmö, Sweden: Skogsgrafiska AB, 1995Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Veale DMW. Psychological aspects of staleness and dependence on exercise. Int J Sports Med 1991; 12: 19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weinberg R, Gould D. Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1995Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Evjenth O, Hamberg J. Muscle stretching in manual therapy. Vol. 1 & 2. Örebro, Sweden: Alfta Rehab förlag, 1985Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bruin G, Kuipers H, Keizer HA, et al. Adaptations and overtraining in horses subjected to increased training loads. J Appl Physiol 1994; 76: 1908–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kenttä G. Överträningssyndrom: en psykofysiologisk process (Overtraining: a psychophysiological process) [Swedish]. Luleå, Sweden: Högskolan i Luleå, 1996Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Noble BJ, Robertson RJ. Perceived exertion. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watt B, Grove R. Perceived exertion: antecedents and applications. Sports Med 1993; 15: 225–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hassmén P. Perceived exertion: applications in sports and exercise [dissertation]. Edsbruk, Sweden: Akademitryck AB, 1991Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Borg G. Perceived exertion: a note on ‘history’ and methods. Med Sci Sports 1973; 5: 90–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hendrickson CD, Verde TJ. Inadequate recovery from vigorous exercise: recognizing overtraining. Physician Sportsmed 1994; 22: 56–8, 61-2, 64Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rushall BS. A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes. Appl Sport Psychol 1990; 2: 51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations