Identifying Optimal Overload and Taper in Elite Swimmers over Time

Abstract

The aim of this exploratory study was to identify the most influential training designs during the final six weeks of training (F6T) before a major swimming event, taking into account athletes' evolution over several seasons. Fifteen female and 17 male elite swimmers were followed for one to nine F6T periods. The F6T was divided into two sub-periods of a three-week overload period (OP) and a three-week taper period (TP). The final time trial performance was recorded for each swimmer in his or her specialty at the end of both OP and TP. The change in performances (ΔP) between OP and TP was recorded. Training variables were derived from the weekly training volume at several intensity levels as a percentage of the individual maximal volume measured at each intensity level, and the individual total training load (TTL) was considered to be the mean of the loads at these seven intensity levels. Also, training patterns were identified from TTL in the three weeks of both OP and TP by cluster analysis. Mixed-model was used to analyse the longitudinal data. The training pattern during OP that was associated with the greatest improvement in performance was a training load peak followed by a linear slow decay (84 ± 17, 81 ± 22, and 80 ± 19 % of the maximal training load measured throughout the F6T period for each subject, Mean ± SD) (p < 0.05). During TP, a training load peak in the 1(st) week associated with a slow decay design (57 ± 26, 45 ± 24 and 38 ± 14%) led to higher ΔP (p < 0.05). From the 1(st) to 3(rd) season, the best results were characterized by maintenance of a medium training load from OP to TP. Progressively from the 4(th) season, high training loads during OP followed by a sharp decrease during TP were associated with higher ΔP. Key PointsDuring the overload training period, a medium training load peak in the first week followed by an exponential slow decay training load design was linked to highest performance improvement.During the taper period, a training load peak in the first week associated with a slow decay design led to higher performances.Over the course of the swimmers' athletic careers, better performances were obtained with an increase in training load during the overload period followed by a sharper decrease in the taper period.Training loads schedules during the final six weeks of training before a major swimming event and changes over time could be prescribed on the basis of the model results.

Keywords: Repeated measures; elite swimmers; monitoring training; periodization; pre-taper and taper; random-effects methodology.

Figure 1.

Change in total training load for the entire group of subjects and for the 85 OPs and TPs included in the study during the final six weeks preceding the national championships. The preparatory and major events are indicated on the figure. NC indicates National Championships. Values are mean±SD.

Figure 2.

Change in total training load in the four clusters during the overload training period. Cluster 1 (continuous line with white diamond shapes, 32 periods) indicates a high training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a linear fast decay training load design. Cluster 2 (continuous line with white circles, 26 periods) indicates a medium training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a linear slow decay training load design. Cluster 3 (broken line with black triangles, 9 periods) revealed a medium training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a fast decay logarithmic design. Cluster 4 (broken line with black squares, 18 periods) shows a low training load peak during the 1^st week, followed by an increase and then a decrease in the training load design. ΔP for design 2 (MP, SD) was significantly higher than ΔP for design 4 (LP, ID).

Figure 3.

Change in total training load in the four clusters during the taper training period. Cluster 1 (continuous line with white diamonds shaped, 3 periods) shows a low training load peak during the 1^st week of TP associated with a slow decay logarithmic pattern. Cluster 2 (continuous line with white circles, 33 periods) was characterized by a high training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a fast decay logarithmic pattern. Cluster 3 (broken line with black triangles, 34 periods) showed a medium training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a low decay logarithmic pattern. Cluster 4 (broken line with black squares, 15 periods) is associated with a medium training load peak during the 1^st week associated with a slow decay exponential design. ΔP for designs 2 (HP, FD) and 3 (MP, LD) was significantly lower than ΔP for design 4 (MP, SD).

Figure 4.

Mean effect of (A) total mileage swum training load in OP (B) high-intensity training load in OP, (C) total weekly training load in TP, and (D) total mileage swum training load variation on the performance change from 1^st to 6^th season.