Study aim: Mathematical models of the relationship between training and performance facilitate the design of training protocols to achieve performance goals. However, current linear models do not account for nonlinear physiological effects such as saturation and over-training. This severely limits their practical applicability, especially for optimizing training strategies. This study describes, analyzes, and applies a new nonlinear model to account for these physiological effects. Material and methods: This study considers the equilibria and step response of the nonlinear differential equation model to show its characteristics and trends, optimizes training protocols using genetic algorithms to maximize performance by applying the model under various realistic constraints, and presents a case study fitting the model to human performance data. Results: The nonlinear model captures the saturation and over-training effects; produces realistic training protocols with training progression, a high-intensity phase, and a taper; and closely fits the experimental performance data. Fitting the model parameters to subsets of the data identifies which parameters have the largest variability but reveals that the performance predictions are relatively consistent. Conclusions: These findings provide a new mathematical foundation for modeling and optimizing athletic training routines subject to an individual’s personal physiology, constraints, and performance goals.
1. Allen H., A. Coggan (2010) Training and Racing With a Power Meter. VeloPress.
2. Asteroth A., A. Hagg (2015) How to successfully apply genetic algorithms in practice: Representation and parametrization. 2015 International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA). DOI: 10.1109/INISTA.2015.7276778.
3. Banister E.W., T.W. Calvert, M.V. Savage, T.M. Bach (1975) A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust. J. Sports Med., 7: 57-61.
4. Busso T. (2003) Variable dose-response relationship between exercise training and performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 35(7): 1188-1195. DOI: 10.1249/01. MSS.0000074465.13621.37.
5. Busso T., C. Carasso, J.-R. Lacour (1991) Adequacy of a systems structure in the modeling of training effects on performance. J. Appl. Physiol., 71(5): 2044-2049.
6. Busso T., K. Häkkinen, A. Pakarinen, C. Carasso, J.R. Lacour, P.V. Komi, H. Kauhanen (1990) A systems model of training responses and its relationship to hormonal responses in elite weight-lifters. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol., 61: 48-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF00236693.
7. Calvert T.W., E.W. Banister, M.V. Savage, T. Bach (1976) A systems model of the effects of training on physical performance. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., 6(2): 94-102. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.1976.5409179.
8. Clarke D.C., P.F. Skiba (2013) Rationale and resources for teaching the mathematical modeling of athletic training and performance. Adv. Physiol. Educ., 37(2): 134-152. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00078.2011.
9. Hellard P., M. Avalos, G. Millet, L. Lacoste, F. Barale, J.-C. Chatard (2005) Modeling the residual effects and threshold saturation of training: A case study of Olympic swimmers. J. Strength Cond. Res., 19(1): 67-75. DOI: 10.1519/14853.1.
10. Hellard P., M. Avalos, L. Lacoste, F. Barale, J.-C. Chatard, G.P. Millet (2006) Assessing the limitations of the Banister model in monitoring training. J. Sports Sci., 24(5): 509-520. DOI: 10.1080/02640410500244697.
11. Rao S.S. (2009) Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9780470549124.
12. Schaefer D., A. Asteroth, M. Ludwig (2015) Training plan evolution based on training models. 2015 International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA). DOI: 10.1109/INISTA.2015.7276739.
13. Sih B.L., C.H. Negus (2016) Physical training outcome prediction with biomechanics, Part 1: Army physical fitness test modeling. Mil. Med., 181(5S). DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00168.
14. Skiba P.F. (2008) Analysis of power output and training stress in cyclists: The development of the BikeScoreTM algorithm. Tech. rep. PhysFarm Training Systems LLC.
15. Taha T., S.G. Thomas (2003) Systems modeling of the relationship between training and performance. Sports Med., 33(14): 1061-1073. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200333140-00003.
16. Thomas L., I. Mujika, T. Busso (2008) A model study of optimal training reduction during pre-event taper in elite swimmers. J. Sports Sci., 26(6): 643-652. DOI: 10.1080/02640410701716782.
17. Thomas L., I. Mujika, T. Busso (2009) Computer simulations assessing the potential performance benefit of a final increase in training during pre-event taper. J. Strength Cond. Res., 23(6): 1729-1736. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3dfa1.