We talked an awful lot about Supercompensation theory.

Its head is substantial influence on training program design.

The theory proposes remember,

that one immediate training effect is the depletion of energy resources.

And a good example that we've talked about is muscle glycogen depletion after

a hard anaerobic exercise training session.

And during the recovery phase, all resources are replenished and

the body's internal environment returns back to normal homeostasis.

And then during the Supercompensation phase,

energy resource enhancements occurs.

The coaching goal is to select the rest interval, so

a subsequent training session coincides with the supercompensation phase.

And this is typical for the sub-eLite athletes.

If rest intervals between consecutive training sessions are too short,

the athlete's overall physiological capacity and consequently,

their fitness decreases.

Now, for the more advanced athletes, we talked about the overloading microcycle,

and it is quite common with the more advanced athletes.

During the first three training sessions,

the rest intervals are purposely shortened, so

full homeostasis does not occur and fatigue accumulates a little bit.

The interval between the third and the fourth training session is lengthened

a little bit, to allow for full recovery of homeostasis and supercompensation.

The next training session coincides with supercompensation

between training sessions 3 and 4.

Now these type of training routine is believed to produce

a higher supercompensation effect.

So, while the supercompensation model is widely accepted,

it has two important drawbacks.

First, it's been difficult to prove that one specific training stimulus

can consistently target the desired energy resources and

the other substrates used by the cells of the organ systems.

And second, supercompensation theory assumes a cause and effect

generalized training response to a stress, regardless of the stimulus strength.

However in sports, we know that one specific training

stimulus produces a wide variety of responses.

Indeed, an expected training effect may not occur at all.

Examples of various levels of responses is seen with the testosterone and

growth hormone response to strength training routines.

Let's take a look at these high volume strength training sessions produce

an acute decrease in circulating blood testosterone levels.

High intensity sessions on the other hand, stimulates an acute

increase in the level of testosterone circulating in the blood.

So there's two different responses depending on the intensity of the workout.

High volume, moderate intensity training increases growth hormone response.

And low volume, high intensity training results in no hormone response.

In other words, the bodies structural and metabolic responses to a training stresser

can vary depending on the type and strength of the stimulus.

In addition, different substrates require unequal amounts of time for

restoration, as we saw in the glycogen situation.

And these makes it difficult to decide on the rest period

between consecutive training sessions.

So these are the problems with supercompensation theory when we apply it

specifically to sports training.

The Problem with Super Compensation Theory

Science of Training Young Athletes Part 2

与讲师见面