CHIU, Loren; BARNES, Jacques 2003 - The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited - Implications for Planning...

42 Strength and Conditioning Journal December 2003

© National Strength & Conditioning AssociationVolume 25, Number 6, page 42–51

The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited: Implications for Planning Short- and Long-Term Training

Loren Z.F. Chiu, MS, CSCSMusculoskeletal Biomechanics Research LaboratoryUniversity of Southern California

Jacque L. Barnes Human Performance LaboratoriesUniversity of Memphis

Keywords: organization of training; periodization; overreaching; athletic performance.

ELITE ATHLETIC PERFORMANCEis dependent on a systemizedtraining program. The generaladaptation syndrome (GAS) wasthe original model from which pe-riodization was designed (67). TheGAS describes the physiologicalresponse of an organism to stress.A more comprehensive model ofthe physiological responses totraining stimuli is the fitness-fa-tigue theory (1). In light of recentresearch examining resistance ex-ercise overreaching and overtrain-ing, it is prudent to review the fit-ness-fatigue theory and determinehow it can be applied to strengthand conditioning.

■ General Adaptation SyndromeInitially described by Selye in1956 (60), the GAS proposes thatall stressors result in similar re-sponses. The initial response, thealarm stage, is negative, with thephysiological state of the organismdecreasing following the imposi-tion of stress. Secondary to thealarm stage is the resistance

stage, where positive adaptationsoccur, returning the organism tohomeostasis and possibly into ahigher state, known as supercom-pensation. The exhaustion stageoccurs when the imposed stress isgreater than the adaptive reservesof the organism. This can happenwhen the magnitude of stress istoo large or additional stressorsoccur. As the response is suppos-edly similar for all stressors, themagnitude and duration of train-ing determine the magnitude andduration of adaptation.

In traditional periodizationmodels, there are multiple boutsof training, resulting in multipleflights of alarm and resistancestages (63, 67). Periodically reduc-ing volume load may prevent theexhaustion stage (63, 67). If theindividual reaches the exhaustionstage, overtraining occurs.

■ Fitness-Fatigue ModelProposed in 1982 by Bannister (1),the fitness-fatigue model arguesthat different training stresses re-sult in different physiological re-

sponses. The state of the organismwithout training is the baselinelevel, which represents the indi-vidual’s general fitness. Trainingresults in 2 after-effects, whichcan positively or negatively influ-ence performance: fitness and fa-tigue (Figure 1). For strength andpower athletes, factors that affectgeneral fitness include musclecross-sectional area, muscle con-tractile protein composition, andmuscle metabolic enzyme concen-trations (23, 24, 44, 62). For en-durance athletes, both cardio-res-piratory factors and muscularfactors affect general fitness (53).Examples of these are maximaloxygen consumption, mitochon-drial density, and muscle capillar-ization. General fitness increaseswith training age; thus elite ath-letes have higher general fitnessthan novices do.

The fitness after-effect is apositive physiological response,whereas the fatigue after-effect isa negative physiological response.The interaction between these 2after-effects results in the change

December 2003 Strength and Conditioning Journal 43

in performance following the stim-ulus (1, 67). It is important to notehere that the fitness-fatigue modelis not necessarily an alternative tothe GAS, but rather a better rep-resentation of stimulus and re-sponse. Indeed, the resultantchange in performance as de-scribed in this model is identicalto the GAS. The distinction of fit-ness and fatigue after -effects,however, is important for the de-velopment of training paradigms.

Fitness after-effects, whetheracute or chronic, appear to be pri-marily neural in nature. Facilita-tion of the peripheral nervous sys-tem occurs via optimal magnitudeand rate of activation of the neuro-muscular complex, coactivation ofintrafusal fibers, and decreasedautogenic inhibition (20–22,27–34, 38–41, 51, 52). Centralnervous system activity increasesthrough up-regulation of thealpha- and beta-receptors andgreater catecholamine release (12).

Fatigue after-effects are bothneural and metabolic in nature.

Down-regulation of the alpha- andbeta-receptors or decreasing therelease of catecholamines can de-crease nervous system function(12, 25, 28, 35). Metabolic fatigueis primarily due to decreased stor-age and availability of energy sub-strates (10, 25, 45, 64, 67).

The magnitude and durationof the after-effects is dependent onthe stimulus, where Bannister (1)initially proposed that training im-pulse, an indicator of physiologi-cal work, was the sole variable. Ingeneral, the fatigue after-effect islarge in magnitude with a brief du-ration. This results in the initialdecrease in performance (similarto Selye’s alarm stage). The fitnessafter-effect has a dull magnitude,but a long duration. This mani-fests as a long-term improvementin performance (similar to Selye’sresistance stage).

■ Evidence of After-EffectsEvidence of the existence of 2after-effects, as opposed to a sin-gle unified response, exists in the

physiological literature. Similarly,there is an absence of evidencesupporting the single unified re-sponse proposed by Selye (60).The initial bases for the GAS arethe endocrine responses to stress(60, 67). These endocrine respons-es, however, are not the same forall exercise regimes. Higher-vol-ume training results in an acutedecrease in circulating testos-terone, whereas higher-intensitytraining results in an acute in-crease in circulating testosterone(46, 47, 49). High-volume, moder-ate-intensity exercise increasesgrowth hormone, but low-volume,very high-intensity training has nogrowth hormone response (47,49). Correspondingly, a brief de-crease in performance can occurregardless of the increase or de-crease in circulating hormones(35–38, 40, 41). The originalpropositions of the GAS are thusfar too simplistic to accurately de-scribe the physiological responseto stimuli.

Perhaps the best evidence offitness and fatigue after-effects isthe physiological phenomenonposttetanic potentiation. Postte-tanic potentiation is the increasein muscle twitch force followingvoluntary or involuntary maximalcontractions (9). Brown and vonEuler (3) reported that successivecontractions in isolated musclepreparations resulted in greaterforce production. Further re-search in animals and humanscorroborated these findings, indi-cating that maximal voluntarycontractions resulted in an in-crease in performance (9, 11, 19,42, 57). Interestingly, individualscompeting in sports respond fa-vorably, whereas recreationallytrained individuals fatigued afterthe maximal voluntary contrac-tions (9). Chiu et al. (9) speculatedthat the athletic individuals had agreater potentiation response (fit-Figure 1. Fitness-fatigue theory.


ness after-effect) and less fatiguecompared with the recreationallytrained individuals.

Physiologically, maximal con-tractions cause a depletion of cre-atine phosphate, an accumulationof extracellular potassium, and anincrease in intramuscular calciumand hydrogen (53). These changescontribute to decreased muscleforce production. Alternatively,maximal contractions result inphosphorylation of the regulatorymyosin light chain and the H-re-flex (9, 19, 42, 57). The regulatorymyosin light chain is a proteinthat regulates the rate of musclecontraction. Phosphorylation ofthis protein increases the rate ofbinding of actin and myosin, re-sulting in faster muscle contrac-tion (57). The H-reflex is a reflex-ive neural signal, which whensuperimposed on voluntary mus-cle activation, increases thestrength of the electrical impulse,thus activating more motor units(19).

In addition to these acute re-sponses, short-term trainingadaptations support the fitness-fatigue model. Fry et al. (16) foundthat following 3 weeks of high rel-ative intensity resistance exercise,strength did not change, whereasspeed decreased. Subjects per-formed near maximal lifts 3 daysper week using the free-weightbarbell squat. Sprint performancedecreased following training, witha 10% increase in 9.1-m run time.This differential response betweenstrength and speed occurs repeat-edly in resistance exercise over-training studies and is supportiveof different responses to stress(12, 13, 15, 16, 45, 58).

■ Stimulus and ResponseBannister (1) suggested that train-ing impulse—the product of heartrate (or exercise intensity) and ex-ercise duration—was the appro-

priate measure for the trainingstimulus. Training impulse is ameasure of total work performed,and a similar measure exists forresistance exercise, called volumeload (64). Volume load refers to thetotal kilograms of weight lifted.Whether training impulse (for en-durance activities) or volume load(for resistance exercise), this no-tion that total work is the stimu-lus responsible for short- andlong-term adaptation is intellectu-ally appealing. However, the re-search by Fry et al. (12, 13, 15, 16)shows that exercise with high loador high intensity in absence ofhigh volume loads results in bothpositive and negative adaptations(45, 58). Thus for a single bout ofexercise, absolute load, trainingintensity, and total work are re-sponsible for the magnitude andduration of the fitness and fatigueafter-effects (4–7, 20–22, 29–32,34, 40, 51, 52, 56).

This important revelation il-lustrates the differing impacts ofthe GAS and fitness-fatigue theo-

ry. The GAS theory states thattotal work alone, regardless of themagnitude of stress, is responsi-ble for the responses. In the fit-ness-fatigue model, both theamount and magnitude of thestimulus contributes to the post-exercise response. Indeed, thisdistinction may demonstrate thecomplexity of the fitness-fatiguemodel. Absolute load, training in-tensity, and total work appear tohave their own fitness and fatigueafter-effects. Therefore, the origi-nal model—having 1 fitness after-effect and 1 fatigue after-effect—may be misleading. There mayactually be multiple fitness after-effects and multiple fatigue after-effects (Figure 2).

Although each specific fitnessand fatigue after-effect is indepen-dent of each other, they have a cu-mulative effect. Of primary con-cern is the summation of fatigueafter-effects. Individual fatigueafter-effects are specific respons-es to stimuli; however, these re-sponses can have a systemic ef-

Figure 2. Revised fitness-fatigue theory


fect, in particular affecting the im-mune system. When fatigue after-effects are small and brief, thesystemic effect is small. However,stressful periods of training with-out sufficient recovery result in anaccumulation of fatigue and an in-crease in the systemic or main fa-tigue after-effect.

The existence of multiple fit-ness and fatigue after-effects mayexplain why individual physicalqualities respond differently tovariations in training. For exam-ple, empirical evidence inweightlifters finds that in periodsof maximal strength training, ex-plosive strength and muscularendurance suffer. Similarly,strength is impaired when theemphasis is on explosive strength(2). If different fitness after-ef-fects exist for absolute strength,explosive strength, and muscularendurance, they should be spe-cific to the mode of training bestsuited for that physical quality.Thus when the emphasis of train-ing is on one and not the otherphysical qualities, the other spe-cific fitness after-effects diminishand that specific aspect of perfor-mance increases.

■ Implications for TrainingFor novice athletes, the emphasisof training is on improving thegeneral fitness level. The generalfitness aspect of the fitness-fa-tigue theory explains why begin-ners tend to respond to any typeof training program. When begin-ners train, general fitness adapta-tions occur without substantialfitness and fatigue after-effects.Novices cannot train with suffi-cient absolute load, intensity, orvolume to elicit large fitness andfatigue after-effects. Thus begin-ners adapt so that they can toler-ate greater absolute loads, exer-cise intensities, and trainingvolumes.

Regardless of the training pa-rameters, adaptations in begin-ners performing resistance exer-cise include muscle hypertrophyand shift of myosin heavy chainIIb to IIa (8, 53, 55, 62). Maximaloxygen consumption, increasedmitochondrial density, and in-creased capillarization result frommost types of endurance training(53). An explanation for the diver-gence in performance adaptationsbetween different programs is therate and magnitude of adapta-tions, rather than the type ofadaptations (55). These adapta-tions are stable and do not tend toregress unless a prolonged periodof detraining occurs (43, 44, 48).

Elite athletes have developed ahigh general fitness level; thus thetraining emphasis shifts to specif-ic fitness adaptations. The highestlevel of performance occurs whenfatigue after-effects are minimaland fitness after-effects are maxi-mal. Mathematical functions canrepresent the fitness and fatigueafter-effects (1, 4–7). As the after-effects decay, they follow an as-ymptotic function where the after-effect approaches but does notreach zero. Thus it is impossiblefor fitness or fatigue to exist inde-pendently. Bannister (1) proposesthat it is better to have high fitnesswith moderate fatigue, rather thanmoderate fitness and low fatigue.Manipulating training parameterscan alter the magnitude and du-rations of these after-effects, pro-ducing the optimal level of perfor-mance. From the temporal patternof the fatigue after-effect, it is im-portant to note that maximal per-formance does not occur immedi-ately after the training phase.

■ Delayed Training EffectThe delayed training effect is a di-rect consequence of the fitness-fa-tigue model. Following a period ofstressful training, the magnitude

of specific fitness and fatigue after-effects is high. A period of traininginvolving reduced total work andrelative intensity is required to re-move the fatigue after-effects (1, 67). When applied before amajor competition, this phase is ataper (14, 18, 27, 54, 61, 65). Al-though widely applied in coachingcircles, the acknowledgment of thedelayed training effect has beenmissing in scientific research.Without a taper period, it is diffi-cult to interpret the true impact ofa training program. Preliminaryevidence suggests 96 hours of restmay be necessary in recreational-ly trained individuals for optimalstrength performance (65).

The period of rest required formaximal strength and velocityadaptations to manifest may de-pend on the nature of the training(59). Training involving concen-tric-only or eccentric-only move-ments requires 10–14 days of restfor optimal strength and velocityadaptations. For typical eccentric-concentric exercise, strength andvelocity were greatest 21 days fol-lowing termination of training.Whether the concentric-only, ec-centric-only, or eccentric-concen-tric exercise modes were directlyresponsible for the different tapertimes is disputable, as eccentric-concentric training would involveroughly twice the volume load asthe other modalities. Regardless,the major finding is in support ofa delayed training effect.

It is rare, however, for eliteathletes to completely abstainfrom training the last weeks beforecompetition. Although a drasticreduction in volume load occursduring these few weeks, empiri-cally, intensity remains high. Thisis especially true in eliteweightlifters. The brief, infrequentimposition of high-intensity train-ing may maintain or increase thespecific fitness after-effects with-


out substantially affecting fatigueafter-effects (16, 43, 64). There-fore, this period is more than sim-ply removing the fatigue after-ef-fect; this period also maximizesthe magnitude of the fitness after-effect. Thus, rather than taper, amore appropriate term for thisphase of training may be ramping.

■ Short-Term OverreachingThe fitness-fatigue theory and de-layed training effect are importantto consider in planning the train-ing of elite athletes. Elite athletescan tolerate greater volume loadand training intensity thannovices and require more stress tostimulate adaptations. The fre-quent imposition of these stress-es, however, makes the athletemore susceptible to overtraining.The need for variation in volumeload and intensity are the ratio-nale behind short-term overreach-ing (12, 64, 67).

Short-term overreaching is thedeliberate imposition of stressfultraining for brief periods inter-spersed with periods of recovery(12, 64). These stressful periodsresult in large fitness and fatigueafter-effects. As the duration ofthe fitness after-effect is longerthan the fatigue after-effect, a pe-riod of rest allows fatigue to di-minish while fitness remains high.Stone and Fry (64) and Fry (12)have proposed that this frequentcycling of training and recoveryphases is necessary to improveperformance in elite athletes.

■ OvertrainingIt is important to consider thatthe fitness and fatigue after-ef-fects are dynamic and not staticentities. If training occurs whilefatigue after-effects persist, addi-tional after-effects will superim-pose on existing ones, exacerbat-ing the maladaptations (1).However, performance decre-

ments may not occur due to thepositive effect of the fitness after-effects. Over time, the persistentaddition of fatigue after-effectsresults in a depletion in the ath-lete’s adaptive abilities, resultingin overtraining. It is here that theGAS falls short in explaining whyperformance drops sharply whenovertraining occurs. Followingthe GAS model, performanceshould decrease progressivelywith additional stressors, whichempirically is not the case. Withthe fitness-fatigue model, fatigueaccumulates, and at the pointwhen fatigue after-effects greatlyexceed fitness after-effects, over-training occurs.

We must be careful in labelingovertraining, as it typically re-quires a prolonged period ofstressful training to reach (12, 64).Coaches and sport scientistsshould not underestimate theadaptive abilities of the humanbody (14). Most individuals willnever reach a true overtrainingstate. Prior research in elite ath-letes has found an ability to toler-ate twofold or threefold increasesin training volume for periods of1–3 weeks (14, 64).

With resistance exercise,recreationally trained individualsare able to maintain or increasestrength with 3–5 d/wk of trainingwith near maximal loads (>90% 1repetition maximum [1RM]; 13,16). Velocity-related perfor-mances, such as sprinting, de-crease at this frequency and in-tensity of training. A trainingfrequency of 7 d/wk for 2 consec-utive weeks results in largestrength decrements (15, 58).Thus training with excessive loadsresults in overtraining faster thantraining with excessive volume.

Similarly, overtraining result-ing from load and intensity ma-nipulations appears to resolvefaster than overtraining resulting

from excess training volume.Lehmann et al. (50) found perfor-mance impairments in overtrainedendurance athletes as much as 1year following reduction in train-ing stress. Overtraining from in-creased loads or training intensityshould resolve within a few weeksof rest (16, 45, 64).

■ Long-Term PlanningAlthough it has fallen out of favoramong many strength and condi-tioning professionals, the tradi-tional periodization model holdsconcepts that are still importantfor planning training programs.Perhaps the most important is theinverse relationship between vol-ume and intensity (63). If we re-member that longer durations arerequired to overtrain and recoverfrom overtraining, with trainingvolume it would be prudent toonly use higher training volumesearly in the training plan.

Higher frequency of training,and therefore higher training vol-ume, increases the duration of thefatigue effect associated with asingle training session (4). Thismay be tolerable early in the train-ing year when fatigue has not ac-cumulated; however, if trainingfrequency remains high through-out the training year, the ability torecover is impaired (4). Reducingtraining volume toward the mid-point of the training year will allowsufficient time for fatigue to di-minish. The use of higher trainingvolume early in the training planalso results in increased adaptiveabilities, which would be usefullater in the training year (14).

Intensity manipulations resultin more predictable responsesthan volume manipulation,whether positive or negative (9,20, 21, 25, 29, 32, 35–38, 40, 51,52, 56). Thus as the competitionperiod nears, it is wise to reducetraining volume to avoid pro-


longed fatigue after-effects whileaddressing training intensity tomaximize the fitness after-effects.

Typically, sequencing of long-term training is in a multidirec-tional fashion. With multidirec-tional training, athletes trainmultiple physical qualities in thesame period. For elite athletes, itmay be necessary to train in a uni-directional fashion, where empha-sis is on only 1 physical qualityduring a given training period. Forexample, an athlete may performa 4-week block of training focus-ing on strength only (67). The uni-directional method usually resultsin short-term overreaching of thetrained quality.

Some coaches and scientistssuggest that consecutive over-reaching phases are possible, solong as each phase is unidirec-tional and emphasizes a differentphysical quality (67). This concurswith the proposed revised fitness-fatigue model involving multiplefitness and fatigue after-effects.The fatigue after-effect specific to1 physical quality should nothamper the performance of an-other physical quality. This ap-plies so long as systemic mal-adaptations, such as impairedimmune system function, do notoccur. Thus even with unidirec-tional sequencing, the trainingplan should include brief periodsfor recovery.

■ Dynamics of the Training DayA single training session can influ-ence subsequent training sessions,both positively and negatively (2,26, 40, 66). The effect depends onthe type of training performed.From the research literature, thereare 3 distinctive types of strengthtraining, which have differing phys-iological effects on the organism:maximal strength, maximal inten-sity, and maximal work (67). Maxi-mal strength training involves

near-maximal loads lifted for mul-tiple sets of few repetitions. Maxi-mal intensity training uses sub-maximal loads lifted with maximalacceleration for multiple sets of lowto moderate repetitions. Maximalwork training involves a high vol-ume of lifts with submaximal loads.

Maximal intensity training hasthe largest fitness after-effect,which is of short duration (9, 19,34, 51, 52). Maximal work traininghas the smallest fitness after-ef-fect, yet the duration is longest(25). Maximal strength traininghas a smaller fitness after-effectthan maximal intensity training (9,19, 34, 51, 52). The fatigue after-effects are similar, with maximalintensity resulting in large fatiguefor a brief period and maximalwork resulting in low-levels of fa-tigue for a prolonged period (5–7,9, 17, 19, 25, 34, 51, 52, 56, 66).

In planning a single trainingsession, maximal intensity andmaximal strength training alwaysprecede maximal work. The onsetof fatigue with maximal worktraining is nearly immediate, asopposed to maximal intensity andstrength, where the fitness after-effect offsets fatigue (17, 25). Eliteathletes can perform maximalstrength training before maximalintensity. This sequencing takesadvantage of the posttetanic po-tentiation phenomenon (9). Less-er -trained athletes, however,should always perform maximalintensity training before maximalstrength training. Elite athletesmay also use this sequencing. Inlesser-trained individuals, fatiguefollows maximal strength training,impairing maximal intensity per-formance (9, 11).

Rather than training multiplestrength qualities in a single train-ing session, dividing training intomultiple sessions per day may beappropriate. Even when totaltraining volume was equal, ath-

letes who trained twice per dayimproved strength more than in-dividuals who trained only onceper day (26). Only athletes whohave a high level of general fitnessshould perform multiple dailytraining sessions. From prelimi-nary research, maximal strengthtraining sessions precede maximalintensity sessions. The large fa-tigue after-effect from maximal in-tensity training appears to mani-fest during the session or in theintersession interval (2, 66). Thisfatigue after-effect negatively af-fects maximal strength, but notexplosive strength (2). A singlemaximal intensity training sessionresults in decreased force produc-tion during a second training ses-sion 4–6 hours later. The earliertraining session does not affect ex-plosive strength or training veloc-ity. Again, when training multipletimes per day, maximal worktraining occurs last.

■ Short-Term TrainingWhen concurrently trainingmultiple strength qualities, earlyin the week the emphasis shouldbe on maximal intensity. As thefatigue after-effect is shortest formaximal intensity training, thisarrangement has the smallestnegative effect on subsequentdays of training. Additionally,the large fitness after-effect maypositively influence subsequenttraining days. A day emphasiz-ing maximal strength occursafter days of maximal intensitytraining, so it does not negative-ly affect the maximal intensitytraining sessions. Similarly,maximal work occurs toward theend of the week, closer to days ofrest, which will allow fatigue torecover.

In general, training sessionsresulting in a large fitness after-ef-fect and a brief fatigue after-effectshould occur early in the training


week. The positive change in per-formance from the fitness after-ef-fect allows the athlete to trainharder in subsequent days. Train-ing sessions resulting in a longerfatigue after-effect occur later inthe training week, immediately be-fore rest days. The rest days allowfatigue to subside. Even 1 day perweek of rest can be sufficient forrecovery (12, 13).

■ SummaryHigh-level human performance re-quires years of diligent training.Coaches and athletes should notleave performance adaptations tochance. Proper planning and orga-nization of training results in thedesired performance outcomes,and empirical and scientific evi-dence is in support of modelingtraining after the fitness-fatiguetheory. From the design of theyearly training structure to eachindividual training session, an ath-lete’s training plan should accountfor fitness and fatigue after-effectsin an effort to maximize the effectsof training. ▲

■ References1. Bannister, E.W. Modeling elite

athletic performance. In: Phys-iological Testing of the High-Performance Athlete. J.D. Mac-Dougall, H.A. Wenger, andH.J. Green, eds. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics, 1991. pp.403–424.

2. Belzer, S.T., L.Z.F. Chiu, E.J.Johnson, M.P. Wendell, A.C.Fry, B.K. Schilling, C.B.Richey, C.A. Moore, and L.W.Weiss. High power training re-sults in acute neuromusculardeficit [abstract]. J. StrengthCond. Res. In press.

3. Brown, G.L., and U.S. vonEuler. The after effects of atetanus on mammalian mus-cle. J. Physiol. (London).93:39–60. 1938.

4. Busso, T., H. Benoit, R. Bon-nefoy, L. Feasson, and J.R. La-cour. Effects of training fre-quency on the dynamics ofperformance response to asingle training bout. J. Appl.Physiol. 92:572–580. 2002.

5. Busso, T., R. Candau, andJ.R. Lacour. Fatigue and fit-ness modeled from the effectsof training on performance.Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 69:50–54.1994.

6. Busso, T., K. Häkkinen, A.Pakarinen, C. Carasso, J.R.Lacour, P.V. Komi, and H.Kauhanen. A systems model oftraining responses and its relationship to hormonal responses in elite weight-lifters. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.61(1–2):48–54. 1990.

7. Busso, T., K. Häkkinen, A.Pakarinen, H. Kauhanen, P.V.Komi, and J.R. Lacour. Hor-monal adaptations and mod-eled responses in eliteweightlifters during 6 weeks oftraining. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.64(4):381–386. 1992.

8. Campos, G.E., T.J. Luecke,H.K. Wendeln, K. Toma, F.C.Hagerman, T.F. Murray, K.E.Ragg, N.A. Ratamess, W.J.Kraemer, and R.S. Staron.Muscular adaptations in re-sponse to three different resis-tance-training regimens: Speci-ficity of repetition maximumtraining zones. Eur. J. Appl.Physiol. 88(1–2):50–60. 2002.

9. Chiu, L.Z.F., A.C. Fry, L.W.Weiss, B.K. Schilling, L.E.Brown, and S.L. Smith. Post-activation potentiation re-sponse in athletic and recre-ationally trained individuals.J. Strength Cond. Res.17(4):671–677. 2003.

10. Costill, D.L., M.G. Flynn, J.P.Kirwan, J.A. Houmanrd, J.B.Mitchell, R. Thomas, and S.H.Park. Effects of repeated days

of intensified training on mus-cle glycogen and swimmingperformance. Med. Sci. SportsExerc. 20:249–254. 1988.

11. Duthie, G.M., W.B. Young, andD.A. Aitken. The acute effectsof heavy loads on jump squatperformance: An evaluation ofthe complex and contrastmethods of power develop-ment. J. Strength Cond. Res.16(4):530–538. 2002.

12. Fry, A.C. The role of trainingintensity in resistance exerciseovertraining and overreaching.In: Overtraining in Sport. R.B.Kreider, A.C. Fry, and M.L.O’Toole, eds. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics, 1998. pp.107–127.

13. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, J.M.Lynch, N.T. Triplett, and L.P.Koziris. Does short-term near-maximal intensity machine re-sistance exercise induce over-training? J. Strength Cond.Res. 8:188–191. 1994.

14. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, M.H.Stone, B.J. Warren, S.J. Fleck,J.T. Kearney, and S.E. Gor-don. Endocrine responses tooverreaching before and after1 year of weightlifting. Can. J.Appl. Physiol. 19(4):400–410.1994.

15. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, F.Van Borselen, J.M. Lynch, J.L.Marsit, E.P. Roy, N.T. Triplett,and H.G. Knuttgen. Perfor-mance decrements with high-intensity resistance exerciseovertraining. Med. Sci. SportsExerc. 26:1165–1173. 1994.

16. Fry, A.C., J.M. Webber, L.W.Weiss, M.D. Fry, and Y. Li. Im-paired performances with ex-cessive high-intensity free-weight training. J. StrengthCond. Res. 14:54–61. 2000.

17. Goméz, A.L., R.J. Radzwich,C.R. Denegar, J.S. Volek, M.R.Rubin, J.A. Bush, B.K. Doan,R.B. Wickham, S.A. Mazzetti,


R.U. Newton, D.N. French, K.Häkkinen, N.A. Ratamess, andW.J. Kraemer. The effects of a10-kilometer run on musclestrength and power. J. StrengthCond. Res. 16(2):184–191.2002.

18. Graves, J.E., M.L. Pollock,S.H. Leggett, R.W. Braith,D.M. Carpenter, and L.E.Bishop. Effect of reducedtraining frequency on muscu-lar strength. Int. J. Sports Med.9:316–319. 1998.

19. Gullich, A., and D. Schmidt-bleicher. MVC-induced short-term potentiation of explosiveforce. New Stud. Athletics.11(4):67–81. 1996.

20. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscularfatigue and recovery in maleand female athletes duringheavy resistance training. Int.J. Sports Med. 14(2):53–59.1993.

21. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscularfatigue in males and femalesduring strenuous heavy resis-tance loading. Electromyogr.Clin. Neurophysiol. 34:205–214.1994.

22. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscularfatigue and recovery in womenat different ages during heavyresistance loading. Elec-tromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.35(7):403–413. 1995.

23. Häkkinen, K., M. Alén, andP.V. Komi. Changes in isomet-ric force- and relaxation-time,electromyographic and musclefibre characteristics of humanskeletal muscle duringstrength training and detrain-ing. Acta Physiol. Scand.125(4):573–585. 1985.

24. Häkkinen, K., M. Alén, andP.V. Komi. Effect of explosivetype strength training in iso-metric force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic andmuscle fibre characteristics ofleg extensor muscles. Acta

Physiol. Scand. 125:587–600.1985.

25. Häkkinen, K., M. Alén, W.J.Kraemer, E. Gorostiaga, M.Izguierdo, H. Rusko, J. Mikko-la, A. Häkkinen, H. Valkeinen,E. Kaarakainen, S. Romu, V.Erola, J. Ahtiainen, and L.Paavolainen. Neuromuscularadaptations during concur-rent strength and endurancetraining versus strength train-ing. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.89:42–52. 2003.

26. Häkkinen, K., and M. Kallinen.Distribution of strength train-ing volume into one or two dailysessions and neuromuscularadaptations in female athletes.Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysi-ol. 34:117–124. 1994.

27. Häkkinen, K., M. Kallinen,P.V. Komi, and H. Kauhanen.Neuromuscular adaptationsduring short-term “normal”and reduced training periodsin strength athletes. Elec-tromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.31:35–42. 1991.

28. Häkkinen, K., and H. Kauha-nen. Daily changes in neuralactivation, force-time and re-laxation-time characteristicsin athletes during very intensetraining for one week. Elec-tromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.29:243–249. 1989.

29. Häkkinen, K., H. Kauhanen,and P.V. Komi. Effects of fatigu-ing loading with a variable re-sistance equipment on neuralactivation and force productionof the knee extensor muscles.Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysi-ol. 28(2–3):79–87. 1988.

30. Häkkinen, K., and P.V. Komi.Electromyographic and me-chanical characteristics ofhuman skeletal muscle duringfatigue under voluntary andreflex conditions. Electroen-cephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.55:436–444. 1983.

31. Häkkinen, K., and P.V. Komi.Fatiguability in voluntary andreflex contraction after condi-tioning of human skeletal mus-cle. Electromyogr. Clin. Neuro-physiol. 25(5):319-330. 1985.

32. Häkkinen, K., and P.V. Komi.Effects of fatigue and recoveryon electromyographic and iso-metric force- and relaxation-time characteristics of humanskeletal muscle. Eur. J. Appl.Physiol. 55:588–596. 1986.

33. Häkkinen, K., P.V. Komi, M.Alén, and H. Kauhanen. EMG,muscle fibre and force produc-tion characteristics during a 1year training period in eliteweight-lifters. Eur. J. Appl.Physiol. 56:419–427. 1987.

34. Häkkinen, K., and E. Myllyla.Acute effects of muscle fatigueand recovery on force produc-tion and relaxation in en-durance, power and strengthathletes. J. Sports Med. Phys.Fitness. 30:5–12. 1990.

35. Häkkinen, K., and A. Pakari-nen. Serum hormones in malestrength athletes during inten-sive short term strength train-ing. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.63(3–4):194–199. 1991.

36. Häkkinen, K., and A. Pakari-nen. Acute hormonal respons-es to two different fatiguingheavy-resistance protocols inmale athletes. J. Appl. Physiol.74:882–887. 1993.

37. Häkkinen, K., and A. Pakari-nen. Acute hormonal respons-es to heavy resistance exercisein men and women at differentages. Int. J. Sports Med.16:507–513. 1995.

38. Häkkinen, K., A. Pakarinen,M. Alén, H. Kauhanen, andP.V. Komi. Daily hormonal andneuromuscular responses tointensive strength training in1 week. Int. J. Sports Med.9:422–428. 1988.

39. Häkkinen, K., A. Pakarinen,


M. Alén, H. Kauhanen, andP.V. Komi. Neuromuscularand hormonal adaptations inathletes to strength training intwo years. J. Appl. Physiol.65:2406–2412. 1988.

40. Häkkinen, K., A. Pakarinen,M. Alén, H. Kauhanen, andP.V. Komi. Neuromuscularand hormonal responses inelite athletes to two succes-sive strength training ses-sions in one day. Eur. J. Appl.Physiol. 57(2):133–139. 1988.

41. Häkkinen, K., A. Pakarinen,and M. Kallinen. Neuromuscu-lar adaptations and serum hor-mones in women during short-term intensive training. Eur. J.Appl. Physiol. 64(2):106–111.1992.

42. Hamada, T., D.G. Sale, andJ.D. MacDougall. Postactiva-tion potentiation in endurance-trained male athletes. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 32:403–411.2000.

43. Hoffman, J.R., and J. Kang.Strength changes during an in-season resistance-training pro-gram for football. J. StrengthCond. Res. 17:109–114. 2003.

44. Izquierdo, M., K. Häkkinen,J.J. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.Ibanez, and E.M. Gorostiaga.Effects of long-term trainingspecificity on maximal strengthand power of the upper andlower extremities in athletesfrom different sports. Eur. J.Appl. Physiol. 87:264–271.2002.

45. Johnson, E.J. High poweroverreaching and dietary in-take. Unpublished Master’sthesis, University of Memphis,Memphis, Tennessee, 2003.

46. Kraemer, W.J., S.J. Fleck, J.E.Dziados, E.A. Harman, L.J.Marchitelli, S.E. Gordon, R.P.Mello, P.N Frykman, L.P.Koziris, and N.T. Triplett.Changes in hormonal concen-

trations after different heavy-resistance exercise protocolsin women. J. Appl. Physiol.75:594–604. 1993.

47. Kraemer, W.J., S.E. Gordon,S.J. Fleck, L.J. Marchitelli, R.P.Mello, J.E. Dziados, K.E.Friedl, E.A. Harman, C.Maresh, and A.C. Fry. Endoge-nous anabolic hormonal andgrowth factor responses toheavy resistance exercise inmales and females. Int. J.Sports Med. 12:228–235. 1991.

48. Kraemer, W.J., L.P. Koziris,N.A. Ratamess, K. Häkkinen,N.T. Triplett-McBride, A.C. Fry,S.E. Gordon, J.S. Volek, D.N.French, M.R. Rubin, A.L.Goméz, M.J. Sharman, J.Lynch, M. Izquierdo, R.U. Newton, and S.J. Fleck. Detraining produces minimalchanges in physical perfor-mance and hormonal variablesin recreationally strength-trained men. J. Strength Cond.Res. 16:373–382. 2002.

49. Kraemer, W.J., L.J. Marchitel-li, S.E. Gordon, E. Harman,J.E. Dziados, R. Mello, P. Fryk-man, D. McCurry, and S.J.Fleck. Hormonal and growthfactor responses to heavy re-sistance exercise protocols. J.Appl. Physiol. 69:1442–1450.1990.

50. Lehmann, M., H.H. Dickhuth,G. Gendrisch, W. Lazar, M.Thum, R. Kaminski, J.F. Ara-mendi, E. Peterke, W. Wieland,and J. Keul. Training-over-training. A prospective, experi-mental study with experiencedmiddle- and long-distance run-ners. Int. J. Sports Med.12(5):444–452. 1991.

51. Linnamo, V., K. Häkkinen, andP.V. Komi. Neuromuscular fa-tigue and recovery in maximalcompared to explosive strengthloading. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.77(1–2):176–181. 1998.

52. Linnamo, V., R.U. Newton, K.Häkkinen, P.V. Komi, A.Davie, M. McGuigan, and T.Triplett-McBride. Neuromus-cular responses to explosiveand heavy resistance loading.J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.10:417–424. 2000.

53. McArdle, W.D., F.I. Katch, andV.L. Katch. Exercise Physiolo-gy: Energy, Nutrition, andHuman Performance. Balti-more: Williams & Wilkins,1996.

54. Neufer P.D., D.L. Costill, R.A.Fielding, M.G. Glynn, and J.P.Kirwan. Effect of reducedtraining on muscular strengthand endurance in competitiveswimmers. Med. Sci. SportsExerc. 19:486–490. 1987.

55. Paulsen, G., D. Myklestad,and T. Raastad. The influenceof volume of exercise on earlyadaptations to strength train-ing. J. Strength Cond. Res.17:115–120.

56. Raastad, T., and J. Hallén. Re-covery of skeletal muscle contractility after high- andmoderate-intensity strengthexercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.82:206–214. 2000.

57. Rassier, D.E., and B.R. MacIn-tosh. Coexistence of potentia-tion and fatigue in skeletalmuscle. Braz. J. Med. Biol.Res. 33:499–508. 2000.

58. Schilling, B.K., A.C. Fry, L.Z.F.Chiu, E. Bernard, S.T. Belzer,and L.W. Weiss. Muscle andperformance adaptations tohigh-load resistance exerciseovertraining [abstract]. J.Strength Cond. Res. 16:484.2002.

59. Schlumberger, A., and D.Schmidtbleicher. Develop-ment of dynamic strengthand movement speed afterhigh-intensity resistancetraining. In: Proceedings ofthe International Conference


on Weightlifting and StrengthTraining. K. Häkkinen, ed.Finland: Gummerus, 1998.pp. 163–164.

60. Selye, H. The Stress of Life.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

61. Shepley, B., J.D. MacDougall,N. Cipriano, J.R. Sutton, M.A.Tarnopolsky, and G. Coates.Physiological effects of taper-ing in highly trained athletes.J. Appl. Physiol. 72:706–711.1992.

62. Staron, R.S., D.L. Karapondo,W.J. Kraemer, A.C. Fry, S.E.Gordon, J.E. Falkel, F.C. Hager-man, and R.S. Hikida. Skeletalmuscle adaptations duringearly phase of heavy-resistancetraining in men and women. J.Appl. Physiol. 76:1247–1255.1994.

63. Stone, M.H., and A.C. Fry. In-creased training volume instrength/power athletes. In:

Overtraining in Sport. R.B.Kreider, A.C. Fry, and M.L. O’-Toole, eds. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics, 1998. pp.87–105.

64. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, andJ. Garhammer. A hypotheticalmodel of strength training. J.Sports Med. Phys. Fitness.21:342–351. 1981.

65. Weiss, L.W. The obtuse nature ofmuscular strength: The contri-bution of rest to its developmentand expression. J. Strength Cond.Res. 5:219–227. 1991.

66. Wendell, M.P., L.Z.F. Chiu,E.J. Johnson, A.C. Fry, B.K.Schilling, L.W. Weiss, C.A.Moore, C.B. Richey, J.L.Barnes, B.J. Miles, and M.W.Malone. Changes in exerciseintensity during high powerresistance exercise performednot-to-failure [abstract]. J.Strength Cond. Res. In press.

67. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science andPractice of Strength Training.Champaign, IL: Human Kinet-ics, 1995.

Loren Z.F. Chiu is a doctoral stu-dent at the University of SouthernCalifornia.

Jacque L. Barnes is with theHuman Performance Laboratoriesat the University of Memphis inMemphis, Tennessee.

Chiu

CHIU, Loren; BARNES, Jacques 2003 - The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited - Implications for Planning...

Documents

Transcript of CHIU, Loren; BARNES, Jacques 2003 - The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited - Implications for Planning...