Overtraining and Recovery: A Conceptual Model
Abstract
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).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Effective post-exercise recovery is critical for restoring physiological homeostasis, repairing muscle damage, replenishing energy stores, and facilitating adaptations that enhance athletic performance.
“Effective post-exercise recovery is critical for restoring physiological homeostasis, repairing muscle damage, replenishing energy stores, and facilitating adaptations that enhance athletic performance [1].”
From Nutritional Strategies to Improve Post-exercise Recovery and Subsequent Exercise Performance: A Narrative Review (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
A perfectly identical exercise dose prescription for any individual may prompt distinct homeostatic stress according to its interaction with oscillating factors such as sleep and nutrition, both affecting recovery and readiness to train.
“Furthermore, a perfectly identical exercise dose prescription for any individual may prompt distinct homeostatic stress according to its interaction with oscillating factors such as sleep and nutrition, both affecting recovery and readiness to train (Kentta & Hassmen, 1998;Samuels, 2009;Hawley et al., 2011).”
From Refuting the myth of non‐response to exercise training: ‘non‐responders’ do respond to higher dose of training (2017) · cites this paper as Kentta & Hassmen, 1998
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 750
- Authors
- Kenttä, G., & Hassmén, P.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Kenttä, Göran
- Venue
- Sports Medicine
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-2035
- OpenAlex
- W2308505436
- Cited by
- 750
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Exercise and Physiological Responses
- Keywords
- overtraining, recovery, supercompensation, training effects, maladaptation, rating of perceived exertion, psychophysiological stress, training load monitoring, elite athletes
- MeSH terms
- Athletic Injuries, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Physical Education and Training, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review