Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoritng and Recovery

Management of Olympic Athletes

Stephen P. Bird

Director in Strength and Conditioning (Postgraduate), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Head of Performance Science, Indonesian Olympic Team (Badminton), 2016 Olympic Games, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Keywords: Sports Science, Fatigue Monitoring, Recovery, Olympic Games.

Abstract: The importance of sport science in the physical preparation of Olympic athletes’ is unquestionable; with sport

science often highlighted as one of the most important factors in fatigue monitoring and recovery

management. Coaches, athletes, sport scientists, and medical staff must center on the fundamental principle

of the ‘training response’, of which, the stress/fatigue state is a key component. That is to say – the ability to

monitor and manage the stress/fatigue state ultimately determines the athlete’s training response. Therefore,

if an athlete is not closely monitored imbalance in the stress/fatigue state will often lead to diminished

performance. As such, development of an elite athletes’ performance potential requires a systematic approach

to training, with the use of sport science an integral component of the overall training plan. This paper shall

describe practical sport science methods for fatigue monitoring and recovery management utilized at the 2016

Rio Olympic Games by the Indonesian National Badminton team.

1 INTRODUCTION

Development of an elite athletes’ performance

potential requires a systematic approach to training,

and this includes addressing physical, psychological,

technical, and tactical preparation (Bangsbo et al.,

2006). Specifically, physical preparation strategies

have centerd on the use of strength and conditioning

methods to improve athletic performance (Newton et

al., 2002, Bangsbo et al., 2006, Kraemer et al., 1998),

and this is an integral component of the overall

training plan (Kearney, 1996).

The importance of sport science in the physical

preparation of Olympic athletes is best highlighted by

Greenleaf, Gould and Dieffenbach (2001), who report

several physical preparation factors that influence

elite performance. Sport science was identified as a

significant performance factor contributing to

Olympic success due to its potential role in fatigue

monitoring and recovery management. A former

gold medallist said, “the timing of my preparation

[and of the races] was very poor and that contributed

to overtraining and my performance was probably

80% at the Games due to fatigue and lack of

recovery.”

Therefore, the monitoring and subsequent

management of this should be crucial to any athlete

program in preparation for the Olympics (Davison

and Williams, 2009). As such, the purpose of this

paper is to (1) overview current sport science

concepts aimed at monitoring athletes training

response and stress/fatigue state; and (2) describe the

physical preparation strategies utilised by the

Indonesian National Badminton team for the Games

of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing, China.

2 DEVELOPING AN ELITE

SPORTS SYSTEM

An overview of elite sport systems presented by

Green and Oakley (2001) outlines four key areas

which are pertinent to the achievement of

international sporting success, these include; (1)

Sport organisation efficiency; (2) Identification of

human resources; (3) Methods of coaching and

training; and (4) Knowledge and application of sport

science and sport medicine. The authors highlight that

many nations have embraced elements of this

systematic approach in the development of an elite

sport system. Ultimately, international sporting

Bird, S.

Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoritng and Recovery Management of Olympic Athletes.

DOI: 10.5220/0009801406970703

In Proceedings of the 3rd Yogyakarta International Seminar on Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science in conjunction with the 2nd Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports

(YISHPESS and CoIS 2019), pages 697-703

ISBN: 978-989-758-457-2

697

success requires planned investment (Hogan and

Norton, 2000).

The first priority is to gain a current perspective

of the elite sport system structure employed by the

key sport stakeholders, as previous work by the

Australia-Indonesia Sport Program emphasised the

importance of such an approach (Williams, 2002).

For the 2016 Olympic Games campaign, Komite

Olimpiade Indonesia (KOI) highlighted 12 primary

focus sports for periodization and Olympic

Qualification (January-June 2016). The 12 Sports

included Badminton, Weight Lifting, Archery,

Athletics, Swimming, Taekwondo, Judo, Cycling

(BMX), Beach Volley, Rowing, Equestrian and

Canoeing.

3 SPORT SCIENCE: 2016 RIO

OLYMPIC GAMES

3.1 Athletic Performance Model

Due to the relative short preparation period (36

weeks), the preparation strategies employed focused

on the Athletic Performance Model (Figure 1) present

by Smith (2003). This model outlines several factors

that influence peak athletic performance and provides

a practical representation of five key components

critical in optimizing athletic performance, these

being; (1) physiology; (2) biomechanics; (3)

psychology; (4) tactics; and (5) heath/lifestyle.

Therefore, peak athletic performance can be defined

as an integrated performance outcome, which

requires a delicate balance between optional loading

(training and non-training stress) and the recovery

process.

Figure 1: The Athletic Performance Model related to the

stress/fatigue state. Three priority areas are circled, each

with one targeted component (boxed) that was the focus of

program design. Modified from Smith (2003).

However, in order to achieve a positive

performance outcome one must consider the role of

the stress-fatigue state to identify signs and symptoms

of overtraining syndrome and under-performance

(Budgett, 1998, Corcoran and Bird, 2012). Kentta and

Hassmen (1998) describe the stress/fatigue state as a

psychosociophysiological phenomenon (Figure 2),

with psychological, social, and physiological factors

recognized to have the greatest impact on this state.

Collectively, when these factors are considered in

relation to their potential effects on the stress/fatigue

state and achievement of a positive performance

outcome, the focus of physical preparation was

selectively targeting three key components from the

athletic performance model.

Figure 2: The stress/fatigue state as a psychosocio

physiological phenomenon.

As previously reported (Bird, 2011) the training

philosophy employed by the national coaches was

that of high-volume, and this was consistent across

the 12 sports preparing for Rio. This was further

compounded by a lack of structured athlete

monitoring and recovery practices which resulted in

a significant number of athletes presenting with high

stress-fatigue states (Bird, 2015). Therefore, a

primary goal was to develop a central ‘fatigue

monitoring and recovery managing’ theme which was

addressed as one of five priority strength and

conditioning areas and provided the theoretical basis

for the physical preparation strategies employed.

3.2 Quantification of Training Load

The first step in the developing an athlete monitoring

and recovery management approach is gaining an

understanding of athlete training loads.

Quantification of session/daily training load during

and the potential implications on separating

physiological and biomechanical load-adaptations

(Vanrenterghem et al., 2017) may have specific

YISHPESS and CoIS 2019 - The 3rd Yogyakarta International Seminar on Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science (YISHPESS

2019) in conjunction with The 2nd Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports (CoIS 2019)

698

relevance during athlete performance optimisation

(Blanch and Gabbett, 2016). As such, the session-

RPE (sRPE) method was employed, which has been

widely used in training load quantification for various

types of training across multiple sports, including

tennis (Coutts et al., 2010), as determined by

multiplying a sessional rating of perceived exertion

(RPE: Category-ratio 10 [CR-10]) by the session

duration (minutes) (Haddad et al., 2017). sRPE

training load values were used to quantify changes in

weekly workload, with a terminal change in weekly

workload capped at no more than 10%. Importantly,

when following this model in athletes undergoing

rehabilitation (unpublished data) such loading did not

elicit pain responses above 6 on self-reported pain

(Numeric Rating Scale) (Bahreini et al., 2015), which

was pre-determined as the upper limit for terminating

the training session.

3.2.1 Training Load: Indonesian Olympic

Badminton Team

Quantification of the training load (AU) was

performed by the sRPE method for every training

session/match during an intensified training camp

(ITC) and the 2016 Rio Olympic Games (OGC)

competition (Bird, 2016). Players were asked 30 min

after each session/match to ensure that their RPE

referred to the intensity of the whole activity rather

than the most recent activity intensity. When

examining training loads in 10 Olympic badminton

players’ (male: n=5 and female: n=5) competing in

six events (Men’s singles [MS]; Women’s singles

[WS]; Men’s doubles [MD]; Women’s doubles

[WD]; Mixed doubles [XD1*Gold Medallists, and

XD2]), as expected, training loads for both male and

female players were was significantly higher during

ITC than OGC (Figure 3, ITC: 999 ± 375 and 1004 ±

407 AU; and OGC: 723 ± 252 and 745 ± 245 AU).

Figure 3: Daily training load (AU) of Olympic badminton

players during an ICT and OGC.

However, individual players' training loads did

not differentiate from each other. Differences in the

six coaches’ periodization strategy were evident

during the OGC. Daily training load profiles for

coaches of XD1* and XD2 employed a step-type

reduction over 3-days, followed by an increased

training dose on day 4. This profile was repeated

twice over the remaining days of the OGC. In

contrast, coaches of MS and WS players displayed an

exponential reduction. Alternatively, coaches of MD

and WD employed a combination of a step-

type/exponential reduction (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Periodization strategy of daily training load dose

employed by coaches during OGC. a) Mixed doubles, Gold

medallists; b) Men’s and c) Women’s singles; d) Women’s

doubles.

3.2.2 Fatigue Monitoring

Self-report subjective well-being measures: The

second step in the developing a fatigue monitoring

and recovery management focus is gaining athlete

wellness and recovery data. In high performance

sport environments, self-report questionnaires

identifying perceived changes in muscle soreness,

feelings of fatigue and wellness, sleep quality and

quantity and a variety of other psychosocial factors

are relied upon for ‘flagging’ athletes in a state of

fatigue (Taylor et al., 2012, Corcoran and Bird, 2012).

This is further supported by the recent works of

Shaw (2015a, 2015b), highlighting the importance of

subjective well-being measures for athlete

monitoring. Given that subjective measures reflect

changes in athlete well-being and provide a practical

Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoritng and Recovery Management of Olympic Athletes

699

method for athlete monitoring, coaches can employ

self-report measures with confidence (Saw et al.,

2015a). As such, an online wellness and recovery

program consisting of daily questionnaires was

employed (AccelerWare, Sports Performance,

Systems Brisbane, Australia). Wellness and recovery

questions examined fatigue, sleep, soreness, stress,

recovery, sickness and injury status, along with

training load quantification via session RPE method

(Foster, 1998). Results of the data are compiled with

daily reports sent to the head coach when an athlete is

flagged ‘at risk’. Figure 5 presents wellness profile

data as a percentage with the threshold set at 65% for

the men’s national team. If an athlete falls below the

threshold they are flagged for medical review. This

data is included in the ‘Athlete Wellness Profile’

which presents an overview of the current health and

wellness status each athlete, providing daily

recommendations for the athlete and coach

Figure 5: Wellness profile scores as a percentage. The

threshold value is set at 65%.

Neuromuscular Profiling: Jump Assessments: An

additional tool to quantify an athletes ‘readiness to

train’, which refers to the ability of an athlete to

generate sport-specific power output in a training

session with an absence of accumulated fatigue, is

that of jump assessments. Taylor et al. (2012)

reported that one of the most commonly employed

tests of functional performance was that of vertical

jump assessments, which is suggested as a convenient

model to examine neuromuscular function with

studies investigating the time course of recovery from

fatiguing training or competition (Cormack et al.,

2013, Cormack et al., 2008).

The practicality of vertical jumps as measure of

neuromuscular fatigue is reflected by the adoption of

such testing procedures in the high performance

sporting environment (Markwick et al., 2015).

However, several protocols and equipment are

available, with little consensus to date as to the

optimal methods or variables of interest for accurately

measuring the state an athletes fatigue and/or

recovery. One of the most popular tools is that of

linear position transducers (Cronin et al., 2004, Harris

et al., 2010), with the use of individual standard

deviation values (±1 SD) to identify changes outside

of normal intra-individual trends often employed as

the threshold (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Athlete power profile report provides an overview

of jump assessment neuromuscular profiling variables

(peak power blue; jumps threshold red) along with other

variables including sickness symptoms and wellness

percentage score.

3.2.3 Recovery Management

It has long been recognized that without adequate

recovery an athlete will not achieve their full

performance potential (Kentta and Hassmen, 1998)

due to the accumulation of progressive fatigue, often

termed ‘overtraining syndrome’(Budgett, 1998).

Therefore, optimizing recovery is an essential

component of the overall training plan. The 100 point

weekly recovery checklist provides a useful tool for

athletes to implement self-initiated, proactive

recovery strategies thereby educating athletes on the

importance of post-training and post-competition

recovery (Bird, 2011). Recovery strategies such as

compression therapy, nutrition and hydration,

hydrotherapy and water immersion, massage and

myofascial release, athlete self-monitoring, and

lifestyle factors such as sleep and reducing stress have

been recommended to target four key recovery focus

areas (Table 1).

YISHPESS and CoIS 2019 - The 3rd Yogyakarta International Seminar on Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science (YISHPESS

2019) in conjunction with The 2nd Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports (CoIS 2019)

700

Table 1: Proactive Recovery Focus Areas.

Neural

Massage; compression therapy

Muscular

Hydrotherapy; contrast water

Substrate

Nutrition; hydration

Psychological

Sleep; lifestyle quality

The numerical value of each recovery strategy has

been determined by the evidence-based effectiveness

of the strategy and the level of athlete proactive

engagement required, see Bird (2011) for complete

description. Two primary considerations were (1) the

effectiveness of the recovery modality (research

evidence supporting use of the modality); and (2) the

level of athlete engagement (self-initiated, proactive

recovery). Therefore, the numerical recovery point

value was to represent a combination of effectiveness

and engagement. Unpublished data suggests that

athletes who score less than 65 weekly recovery

points are ‘at risk’, and this may present a significant

impact to both training and performance.

In preparation for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games,

a modified 24 hour recovery checklist was used to

engage players in daily self-initiated, proactive

recovery. Throughout a 9-day intensified training

camp (Sau Paulo, Brazil) a daily numerical target was

set at 20 recovery points. This was immediately

followed by Olympic Games competition (Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil) over 6–9 days, where the daily

numerical target of 15 recovery points was employed.

Higher numerical points were allocated to recovery

strategies

4 CONCLUSIONS

Fatigue is often experienced by Olympic athletes and

this is a necessary component to stimulate appropriate

responses to training demands (i.e., adaptation),

however achieving such an optimal condition may

leave athletes ‘fragile’ and susceptible to illness or

over-training. Furthermore, due to the pressure to

perform at Olympic Games there is a tendency for

athletes to prepare ‘too much’ in an effort to get that

competitive the ‘edge’ and in doing so athletes may

not devote appropriate time to mental and physical

recovery (Davidson and Williams, 2009)

The application of sport science in the fatigue

monitoring and recovery management is to gather

athlete wellness data and provide feedback with a

primary goal of encouraging pro-active athlete

engagement in the recovery management of their

stress/fatigue state (McFarland and Bird, 2014).

Components of the systematic process outlined above

employs commonly used measures delivered in a

format considered to be easily presented to the athlete

and coach.

The combination of subjective self-reported

measures, suggested to trump commonly used

objective measures (Saw et al., 2015a), and objective

measures, allows a complete picture of the current

status of the athlete. Coach and athlete feedback to

should be rapid (within 1 hour of completion),

occurring well before the planned training session.

This is a key feature of the fatigue monitoring and

recovery management process to achieve ‘buy in’

from all involved in the training process (coaches,

athletes, sport scientists, medical staff) and allow

appropriate time for discussion and resource

allocation in the event that an athlete is ‘flagged’.

Feedback can be written or verbal or, most often,

a combination of the two so that a dialogue can occur

about the recorded data. Importantly, the information

must be end-user-friendly (i.e. jargon-free), visually

appealing, and performance focused (Davison et al.,

2009). Finally, it is important that all data is analyzed

with appropriate statistical methods in order to

identify potential problems, providing confidence in

the process being undertaken.

The recovery checklist provides a useful tool to

educate Olympic athletes about the importance of

post-training and post-competition recovery, and to

promote self-initiated, proactive recovery strategies

for maximum performance. In agreement with

Robson-Ansley and colleagues (2009), it is concluded

that well-accepted recovery methods such as

nutrition, hydration, and sleep (Bird, 2013, Halson,

2008) appear to be the most effective strategies for

optimizing recovery in Olympic athletes during

competition.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express his most sincere

gratitude to the coaches and athletes from the

Badminton Association of Indonesia (Persatuan

Bulutangkis Seluruh Indonesia - PBSI), the

Indonesian Olympic Committee and Program

Indonesia Emas (PRIMA) for their dedication, and

collaboration. I thank Dr. Muhammad Ikhwan Zein,

Faculty of Sports Science, Universitas Negeri

Yogyakarta, Indonesia and the Conference on

Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports Committee for

kindly inviting manuscript submission.

Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoritng and Recovery Management of Olympic Athletes

701

REFERENCES

Bahreini, M., Jalili, M. & Moradi-Lakeh, M. 2015. A

comparison of three self-report pain scales in adults

with acute pain. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48,

10-18.

Bangsbo, J., Mohr, M., Poulsen, A., Perez-Gomez, J. &

Krustrup, P. 2006. Training and testing the elite athlete.

Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness 4, 1-14.

Bird, S. P. 2011. Implementation of recovery strategies:

100-point weekly recovery checklist. International

Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 16, 16-19.

Bird, S. P. 2013. Sleep, recovery and athletic performance:

A brief review and recommendations. Strength and

Conditioning Journal, 35, 43-47.

Bird, S. P. Applications of sport science in monitoring

fatigue and managing recovery. High Performance

Operation Plan (HIPOP) Seminar - Road to the 18th

Asian Games, Dec 6 - 9 2015 Bandung, Indonesia.

Bird, S. P. 2016. Profile of training load in elite badminton

players during an intensified pre-Olympic training

camp and Olympic competition. Journal of Australian

Strength and Conditioning, 24, 61-62.

Blanch, P. & Gabbett, T. J. 2016. Has the athlete trained

enough to return to play safely? The acute:chronic

workload ratio permits clinicians to quantify a player's

risk of subsequent injury. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 50, 471-475.

Budgett, R. 1998. Fatigue and underperformance in

athletes: the overtraining syndrome. British Journal of

Sports Medicine, 32, 107-10.

Corcoran, G. & Bird, S. P. 2012. Monitoring overtraining

in athletes: A brief review and practical applications for

strength and conditioning coaches. Journal of

Australian Strength and Conditioning, 20, 45-57.

Cormack, S. J., Mooney, M. G., Morgan, W. & Mcguigan,

M. R. 2013. Influence of neuromuscular fatigue on

accelerometer load in elite Australian football players.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and

Performance, 8, 373-378.

Cormack, S. J., Newton, R. U., Mcguigan, M. R. & Doyle,

T. 2008. Reliability of measures obtained during single

and repeated countermovement jumps. International

Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 131-

144.

Coutts, A. J., Gomes, R. V., Viveiros, L. & Aoki, M. S.

2010. Monitoring training loads in elite tennis. Revista

Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho

Humano, 12, 217-220.

Cronin, J. B., Hing, R. D. & Mcnair, P. J. 2004. Reliability

and validity of a linear position transducer for

measuring jump performance. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 18, 590-593.

Davison, R. C. R. & Williams, A. M. 2009. The use of

sports science in preparation for Olympic competition.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1363-1365.

Davison, R. R., Van Someren, K. A. & Jones, A. M. 2009.

Physiological monitoring of the Olympic athlete.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-10 iFirst article.

Foster, C. 1998. Monitoring training in athletes with

reference to overtraining syndrome. Medicine and

Science in Sports and Exercise, 30, 1164-8.

Green, M. & Oakley, B. 2001. Elite sport development

systems and playing to win: uniformity and diversity in

international approaches. Leisure Studies, 20, 247 -

267.

Greenleaf, C., Gould, D. & Dieffenbach, K. 2001. Factors

influencing Olympic performance: Interviews with

Atlanta and Negano US Olympians. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 13, 154 - 184.

Haddad, M., Stylianides, G., Djaoui, L., Dellal, A. &

Chamari, K. 2017. Session-RPE method for training

load monitoring: Validity, ecological usefulness, and

influencing factors. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 612.

Halson, S. L. 2008. Nutrition, sleep and recovery. European

Journal of Sport Science, 8, 119-126.

Harris, N. K., Cronin, J., Taylor, K.-L., Boris, J. &

Sheppard, J. 2010. Understanding position transducer

technology for strength and conditioning practitioners.

Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32, 66-79.

Hogan, K. & Norton, K. 2000. The price of Olympic gold.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 3, 203-218.

Kearney, J. T. 1996. Training the Olympic athlete.

Scientific American, 274, 52-7, 60-3.

Kentta, G. & Hassmen, P. 1998. Overtraining and recovery.

A conceptual model. Sports Medicine, 26, 1-16.

Kraemer, W. J., Duncan, N. D. & Volek, J. S. 1998.

Resistance training and elite athletes: adaptations and

program considerations. Journal of Orthopaedic and

Sports Physical Therapy, 28, 110-9.

Markwick, W. J., Bird, S. P., Tufano, J. T., Seitz, L. B. &

Haff, G. G. 2015. The intraday reliability of the reactive

strength index calculated from a drop jump in

professional men's basketball. International Journal of

Sports Physiology and Performance, 10, 482-488.

Mcfarland, M. & Bird, S. P. 2014. A wellness monitoring

tool for youth athletes. Journal of Australian Strength

and Conditioning, 22, 22-26.

Newton, R. U., Jones, J., Kraemer, W. J. & Wardle, H.

2002. Strength and power training of Australian

Olympic swimmers. Strength and Conditioning

Journal, 24, 7-15.

YISHPESS and CoIS 2019 - The 3rd Yogyakarta International Seminar on Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science (YISHPESS

2019) in conjunction with The 2nd Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports (CoIS 2019)

702

Robson-Ansley, P. J., Gleeson, M. & Ansley, L. 2009.

Fatigue management in the preparation of Olympic

athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1409-20.

Saw, A. E., Main, L. C. & Gastin, P. B. 2015a. Monitoring

the athlete training response: subjective self-reported

measures trump commonly used objective measures: a

systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Saw, A. E., Main, L. C. & Gastin, P. B. 2015b. Role of a

self-report measure in athlete preparation. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 685-691.

Smith, D. J. 2003. A framework for understanding the

training process leading to elite performance. Sports

Medicine, 33, 1103-26.

Taylor, K.-L., Chapman, D. W., Cronin, J. B., Newton, M.

J. & Gill, N. 2012. Fatigue monitoring in high

performance sport: A survey of current trends. Journal

of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 20, 12-23.

Vanrenterghem, J., Nedergaard, N. J., Robinson, M. A. &

Drust, B. 2017. Training load monitoring in team

sports: A novel framework separating physiological

and biomechanical load-adaptation pathways. Sports

Medicine, 47, 2135-2142.

Williams, H. 2002. Submission No 40: Inquiry into

Australia's relations with Indonesia. Department of

Communications, Information Technology and the

Arts, Canberra ACT: Department of Communications,

Information Technology and the Arts.

Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoritng and Recovery Management of Olympic Athletes

703