Autonomic nervous system activity andPerformance in competitive swimming

SynapseThe Research Group

Martin Garet, Nicolas Tournaire,Frédéric Roche, Renaud Laurent,

Jean-René Lacour, Jean-Claude Barthélémy,Vincent Pichot

Saint-Etienne

Facultéde MédecineJacques Lisfranc

Saint-EtienneUniversité Jean Monnet

PPEH Research GroupCHU Saint-EtienneFaculté de Médecine Jacques LisfrancUniversité Jean Monnet

UFR STAPS Clermont-Ferrand, France

Autonomic NervousSystem

- Parasympathetic

- Sympathetic

R-R variability in the recovery phase after a strenuous physical exercise

Furlan et al. (1993)

Before Exercise

Exercise

May determine cumulated decrease Rebound

Exercise, cumulated fatigue

Pichot V. et al. , Pflügers Archiv, 2002

W1 W2 W3 W4Rest

**

0

50

100

HF

wav

elet

s (%

)

W1 W2 W3 W4Rest

**

Athletes Workers

Pichot V. et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2000

Training. Improve performance.

rest rest rest

Load

HRV UnfavorableOvertraining

TrainingTrainingTraining

HRV FavorableLoad

Rebound

Cycle

Overload

Pichot, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2000 Pichot, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2002Pichot, Pflügers, 2002

?

Kenney W.L. Exercise PhysiologyCurrent Selected Research, 1988

VO2max, mL.kgMM-1.min-1

.

ln V

HP

(m

s)

7

6

5

4

3

30 40 50 60 70 80

ANS - Performance

HR

V (

Pto

t)

30 40 50 60 70

2000

10000

8000

6000

4000

VO2max, mL.kgMM-1.min-1.

Pichot V. et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2002

Cross-sectional Longitudinal

Study

ANS – Training Load

ANS - Performance

Group level

Individual level

Individual monitoring

Tapering

Overtraining prevention

?

Population- 7 regional-level swimmers (4 boys, 3 girls)- 16.6±0.5 years- 6.4±0.9 years of practice - 400 m freestyle

Timing of measurements

HRV HRV HRV HRVHRV HRV

W0 W5W4W3W2W1

Perf 3Perf 1 Perf 2

RP1 TP RP2

Baseline

Resting TaperingTraining Period

CERT

CE

RT

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

Training load

Tra

inin

g l

oad

Training load

- 69.1 % during W4 and W5

**

**

§

175

100

125

150

200

75

25

50

0Perf 1 Perf 2 (W3) Perf 3 (W5)

115.25±57.48%71.30±52.60%

HF

WT (

% P

erf

1)

ANS evolution group level

NS

NS

175

100

125

150

200

75

25

50

0

S3

S4

S1

S7

S2

S5

S6 S4

S2S6

S7

S3S5S1

Perf 1 Perf 2 (W3) Perf 3 (W5)

HF

WT (

% P

erf

1)

ANS evolutionindividual level

Rest RestTraining

5’10 5’04 = - 6 s

5’03 4’54 = - 9 s

5’10 5’16 = + 6 s 100

Relative values, HF%

148 %

-35 %

254 %

P1 P3

P1 P3

Garet M. et al. In press, 2004

±Rebound - Performance

P2

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

5

10

15

20

0

-10

-5

Delta HF (WT)

Delta Perf = -1.232 - 1.625 * Delta HF (WT)R2 = 0.50

Del

ta P

erf

(s)

Optimize training loadOptimize tapering

Conclusion

Highly individual

- ANS answer to training load- Supercompensation- Speed of rebound

Common rule: High correlation between:

- ANS activity level and performance- Respective variations in ANS and in performance

Engineers

Vincent PICHOTDavid DUVERNEYSébastien CELLEAnestis ANTONIADIS

Neurophysiologist

Frédérique BERTHOLON

MD, PhD

Jean-Claude BARTHELEMYFrédéric ROCHE Frédéric COSTESDavid CHARIERJean-René LACOUR

SynapseResearch Group

PhD Students

Nicolas DESVIGNEMartin GARETMarc CHARLESSébastien CELLEFrancis DEGACHE

E-mail: martingaret@hotmail.com