Buckner et al. [1] have submitted a letter in response to our recent review [2] on the general adaptation syndrome (GAS) and its application to training periodization. As Buckner et al. state, this topic deserves fair and thorough discussion from multiple perspectives, and we thank them for  the opportunity to continue such dialogue. Their letter restates many of the points in their original reviews [3, 4], which we addressed in our manuscript. Nevertheless, we will address the main points of their letter to provide further clarity on how the GAS does in fact serve as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize training periodization

NC DOCKS at Appalachian State University

Triplett, N. Travis

English

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Archived version from NCDOCKS Institutional Repository http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/ Authors’ Reply to Buckner et al.: ‘Comment on: “The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization”By: Aaron J. Cunanan, Brad H. DeWeese, John P. Wagle, Kevin M. Carroll, Robert Sausaman, W. Guy Hornsby III, G. Gregory Haff, N. Travis Triplett,Kyle C. Pierce, and Michael H. StoneAbstractBuckner et al. [1] have submitted a letter in response to our recent review [2] on the general adaptation syndrome (GAS) and its application to training periodization. As Buckner et al. state, this topic deserves fair and thorough discussion from multiple perspectives,  and we thank them for  the opportunity to continue such dialogue. Their letter restates many of the points in their original reviews [3, 4], which we addressed in our manuscript. Nevertheless, we will address the main points of their letter to provide further clarity on how the GAS does in fact serve as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize training periodization.Cunanan, A.J., DeWeese, B.H., Wagle, J.P. et al. Sports Med (2018) 48: 1755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0884-6. Publisher version of record available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-0884-6Authors’ Reply to Buckner et al.: ‘Comment on: ‘‘The General Adaptation  Syndrome:  A  Foundation  for  the  Concept of Periodization’’ Aaron J. Cunanan1 •   Brad H. DeWeese1 •   John P. Wagle1 •   Kevin M. Carroll1 •Robert Sausaman1 •   W. Guy Hornsby III2 •   G. Gregory Haff3 •N. Travis Triplett4 •   Kyle C. Pierce5 •   Michael H. Stone1 1 Introduction Buckner et al. [1] have submitted a letter in response to our recent review [2] on the general adaptation syndrome (GAS) and its application to training periodization. As Buckner et al. state, this topic deserves fair and thorough discussion from multiple perspectives,  and we thank them for  the opportunity to continue such dialogue. Their letter restates many of the points in their original reviews [3, 4], which we addressed in our manuscript. Nevertheless, we will address the main points of their letter to provide further clarity on how the GAS does in fact serve as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize training periodization. 2 Data Have Been Ignored? Buckner et al. [1] suggest that only Selye’s original experimental papers should be considered when examining the potential applications of the GAS, and thus dismiss the relevance of reviews by Selye that do not present additional data. We are perplexed by and fundamentally disagree with this position as it implies (i) one cannot expand, amend, or revise his or her conclusions about a topic without new data, despite any apparent advances in scientific knowl- edge, (ii) literature reviews do not contribute to the sci- entific knowledge, and (iii) Selye was unqualified to comment on the GAS. A detailed explanation linking Selye’s experimental data to periodization is not possible in this limited space, but we refer readers in particular to Selye’s summary of experi- ments [5], in which the data in Tables 1, 2, and 3 support, at least conceptually, the basic training principles of overload, specificity, variation, and reversibility, which are fundamental to modern periodization. Additionally, Viru [6, 7] provides clear summaries linking the GAS to training adaptations. As we suggest in our review [2], the restricted perspective adopted by Buckner et al. [1] ‘‘inexplicably omits substantive developments of the GAS concept that evolved from Selye’s original experiments, and leads the & Aaron J. Cunanan aaron.cunanan@gmail.com 1 Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA 2 College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA 3 Centre for Exercise and Sport Sciences Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia 4 Department of Health and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28607, USA 5 Department of Kinesiology and Health Science, Louisiana State University Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71115, USA authors to argue against isolated components of the GAS removed from scientific and practical context’’. Further- more, it leads these authors to misinterpret what the GAS is, which we address in the following section. 3 What is the General Adaptation Syndrome? Buckner et al. [1] claim that their position is based on Selye’s original experimental papers; however, they ignore a notable interpretation made by Selye during such work. Namely, Selye referred to his data on changes in thymus weight and mortality as indices of an animal’s resistance to LETTER TO THE EDITOR  a stressor [4]. That is, these data were surrogate measures of the animal’s functional state (i.e., resistance/adaptation). Although Selye highlighted several common physical changes (e.g., thymus involution), it is clear from his detailed cataloguing of variable symptoms arising in response to specific stimuli [5, 8, 9] that the GAS is not defined as any single set of physical symptoms. Selye emphasized the functional effects of the GAS, not just the rote documentation of any accompanying physical chan- ges. However, in their review, Buckner et al. [3] seem to ignore this point with their suggestion, in reference to the GAS, that ‘‘the most effective periodized program would produce the least amount of thymus involution and adrenal hyperplasia’’, which we view to be a mischaracterization of Selye’s experimental work and the GAS. 4 How Dangerous is Exercise? Buckner et al. [1] criticize our citation of Selye’s remarks on the periodicity of stress and recovery. However, the passages they quote from Selye’s review [10] again mis- characterize Selye’s statements through the omission of relevant material. The section in question is titled ‘The Physio-pathology of Periodicity’ and does highlight pathologies arising from a lack of periodicity. However, Selye notes that ‘‘stress-reactions…are well tolerated only during short periods and tend to cause severe complications if they act upon the body persistently over a long time’’ and suggests a potential benefit in the therapeutic application and withdrawal of stress. Although Selye does not explic- itly mention ‘acute exercise’ (he does, however, mention ‘muscular work’, as Buckner et al. [1] quote in their letter), the GAS is nonspecific and applies, in general, to various stressors—acute exercise notwithstanding. Therefore, these statements provide guidance on the possible beneficial and pathological outcomes in response to stress, and, if the GAS is applied to training, imply the need for planned variation (e.g., heavy/light days) and rest. Furthermore, several studies have documented the negative effects of sustained high training loads [11–14], and the apparent interactions between training load, performance, subjective wellness, and risks [15–25]. Thus, Selye’s statements and available evidence may also imply the need for cyclical variation of training loads across phases. Although suffi- cient longitudinal data are lacking in the existing literature, it is worth noting, from observations and conversations with international coaches in the sports of weightlifting and track and field, that training systems that employ relatively little variation of volume, intensity, and/or exercise selec- tion are associated with the highest incidences of perfor- mance-enhancing drug use, suggesting that such unvaried training methods may exceed the normal physiological capabilities of humans. Finally, Buckner et al.’s [1] dismissal of formal defini- tions of periodization and programming only serve to contribute to the confusion and controversy surrounding these concepts. In a review from this group, Mattocks et al. [4] largely compare the effects of different loading schemes (i.e., programming) rather than the sequential development of fitness characteristics (i.e., periodization). As they note, the principle of specificity suggests that training should closely match one’s competitive demands. However, most sports require a vast repertoire of skills and tactics underpinned by a wide range of forces, rates of force development, movement amplitudes, movement velocities, bioenergetic flux, etc. Simultaneously address- ing the gamut of all these qualities is unfeasible and likely detrimental to the athlete and his or her performance. Buckner et al. [1] acknowledge the fact that some planning is necessary to account for the various stressors an athlete may encounter. Given the principle of specificity, if one allocates the targeted development of multiple fitness characteristics to different periods of time, whether out of practicality or more deterministically, the training content during each of those phases must vary. Additionally, the sequencing and specific content of those phases can impact training outcomes [26–28]. Furthermore, even sports that require the development of relatively few fitness charac- teristics (e.g., weightlifting, powerlifting) require, at the very least, some variation in loading (i.e., not always lifting one repetition-maximums), not to mention the common scenario of such an athlete attempting to move up a weight class (i.e., develop muscle hypertrophy). Therefore, we contend that planning training requires more than simply accounting for an athlete’s total stress, and that peri- odization is an effective method for planning and orga- nizing the many factors of training. 5 Conclusion Buckner et al. [1] have based their opinion on an incom- plete version of the GAS and with disregard for formal definitions of periodization. Even during his early work, Selye was concerned with the functional significance of the GAS. The functional changes in resistance/adaptation observed during the GAS are clearly seen in response to training. The fitness-fatigue paradigm [29, 30] is especially useful for understanding this functional perspective of the GAS in relation to training and performance. Additionally, research on the time courses of various adaptations, appropriate stimuli for specific adaptation(s), and the influence of ‘conditioning factors’ suggest the need for the careful planning of sports training. The GAS and peri- odization provide conceptual frameworks within which to apply such scientific findings. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflicts of Interest Aaron Cunanan, Brad DeWeese, John Wagle, Kevin Carroll, Robert Sausaman, W. Guy Hornsby III, G. Gregory Haff, N. Travis Triplett, Kyle Pierce, and Michael Stone declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this letter. References 1. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT,Loenneke JP. Comment on: ‘‘The general adaptation syndrome: afoundation for the concept of periodization’’. Sports Med. 2018.2. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Carroll KM, Sausaman R,Hornsby WG, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: a foun-dation for the concept of periodization. Sports Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0855-3 (First online: 6 Jan 2018)..3. Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT,Loenneke JP. The general adaptation syndrome: Potential mis- applications to resistance exercise. J Sci Med Sport.2017;20(11):1015–7.4. Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Counts BR,Mouser JG, et al. Periodization: what is it good for? J Trainol.2016;5(1):6–12.5. Selye H. Experimental evidence supporting the conception of’’ adaptation energy’’. Am J Physiol. 1938;123(3):758–65.6. Viru A. The mechanism of training effects: a hypothesis. Int JSports Med. 1984;5(05):219–27.7. Viru A. Mechanism of general adaptation. Med Hypotheses.1992;38(4):296–300.8. Selye H. Studies on adaptation. Endocrinology.1937;21(2):169–88.9. Selye H. The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases ofadaptation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1946;6(2):117–230.10. Selye H. Stress and the general adaptation syndrome. BMJ.1950;1(4667):1383.11. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, van Borselen F, Lynch JM, Marsit JL, Roy EP, et al. Performance decrements with high-intensity resistanceexercise overtraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26(9):1165.12. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Gordon SE, Stone MH, Warren BJ, FleckSJ, et al. Endocrine responses to overreaching before and after1 year of weightlifting. Can J Appl Physiol. 1994;19(4):400–10.13. Halson SL. Performance, metabolic and hormonal alterationsduring overreaching. Queensland: Queensland University ofTechnology; 2003.14. Moore CA, Fry AC. Nonfunctional overreaching during off-season training for skill position players in collegiate American football. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(3):793.15. Aubry A, Hausswirth C, Louis J, Coutts AJ, Le Meur Y. Func-tional overreaching: the key to peak performance during thetaper? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(9):1769–77.16. Bazyler CD, Mizuguchi S, Harrison AP, Sato K, Kavanaugh AA,DeWeese BH, et al. Changes in muscle architecture, explosiveability, and track and field throwing performance throughout a competitive season and after a taper. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(10):2785–93. 17. Harrison PW, Johnston RD. Relationship between training load,fitness, and injury over an Australian rules football preseason. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(10):2686–93. 18. Hellard P, Avalos M, Lacoste L, Barale F, Chatard J-C, MilletGP. Assessing the limitations of the Banister model in monitoring training. J Sport Sci. 2006;24(05):509–20. 19. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, Fry A, Gleeson M, Nieman D,et al. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(1):186–205. 20. Milanez VF, Ramos SP, Okuno NM, Boullosa DA, NakamuraFY. Evidence of a non-linear dose-response relationship between training load and stress markers in elite female futsal players. J Sport Sci Med. 2014;13(1):22. 21. Saw AE, Main LC, Gastin PB. Monitoring the athlete trainingresponse: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:281–91. 22. Schwellnus M, Soligard T, Alonso J-M, Bahr R, Clarsen B,Dijkstra HP, et al. How much is too much? (Part 2) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of illness. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(17):1043–52. 23. Soligard T, Schwellnus M, Alonso J-M, Bahr R, Clarsen B,Dijkstra HP, et al. How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(17):1030–41. 24. Stults-Kolehmainen MA, Bartholomew JB, Sinha R. Chronicpsychological stress impairs recovery of muscular function and somatic sensations over a 96-hour period. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(7):2007–17. 25. Woods AL, Rice AJ, Garvican-Lewis LA, Wallett AM, Lundy B,Rogers MA, et al. The effects of intensified training on resting metabolic  rate  (rmr),  body  composition  and  performance  in trained cyclists. PLoS ONE. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0191644 (First online: 14 February 2018).. 26. Arroyo-Toledo JJ, Clemente VJ, González-Rave JM. The effectsof ten weeks block and reverse periodization training on swim- ming performance and body composition of moderately trained female swimmers. J Swim Res. 2013;21(1):1–13. 27. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, McBride J, Triplett T, SandsWA, et al. Strength gains: block versus daily undulating peri- odization weight training among track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(2):161–9. 28. Painter KB, Haff GG, Triplett NT, Stuart C, Hornsby G, RamseyMW, et al. Resting hormone alterations and injuries: block vs DUP weight-training among D-1 track and field athletes. Sports. 2018;6(1):3. 29. Borresen J, Lambert MI. The quantification of training load, thetraining response and the effect on performance. Sports Med. 2009;39(9):779–95. 30. Morton RH. Modelling training and overtraining. J Sport Sci. 1997;15(3):335–40. 

Authors’ Reply to Buckner et al.: ‘Comment on: “The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization”

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Triplett_Travis_2018_AuthorsReply_TheGeneralAdapatation.pdf

Authors’ Reply to Buckner et al.: ‘Comment on: “The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization”

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro