Nuuttila Olli-Pekka, Schäfer Olstad Daniela, Martinmäki Kaisu, Uusitalo Arja, Kyröläinen Heikki
Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland.
UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, 33500 Tampere, Finland.
Sensors (Basel). 2025 Jan 17;25(2):533. doi: 10.3390/s25020533.
Previous studies on the effects of intensified training on sleep quality/quantity have been somewhat contradictory. Moreover, recreational athletes often track various sleep metrics, and those metrics' actual connections to training adaptations are unknown. This study explored the effects of intensified training on sleep and nightly recovery along with their associations with training adaptations. A total of 24 participants (10 females) performed a 3-week baseline training period (BL), a 2-week overload period (OL), and a 1-week recovery period (REC), which were followed by test days (T1-T3). The endurance performance was assessed with a 3000 m running test. Throughout all of the periods, the nightly recovery information was monitored with a wrist-worn wearable, including sleep quantity and quality, heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV), and proprietary parameters combining several parameters and scaling the results individually. In addition, the perceived strain and muscle soreness were evaluated daily. The 3000 m running performance improved from T1 to T2 (-1.2 ± 1.7%, = 0.006) and from T1 to T3 (-1.7 ± 1.2%, = 0.002). The perceived strain and muscle soreness increased ( < 0.001) from the final week of the BL to the final week of the OL, but the subjective sleep quality and nightly recovery metrics remained unchanged. The OL average of the proprietary parameter, autonomic nervous system charge ("ANS charge", combining the HR, HRV, and breathing rate), as well as the change in the sleep HR and HRV from the BL to the OL, were associated ( < 0.05) with a change in the 3000 m running time. In conclusion, the subjective recovery metrics were impaired by intensified training, while the sleep and nightly recovery metrics showed no consistent changes. However, there were substantial interindividual differences in nightly recovery, which were also associated with the training adaptations. Therefore, monitoring nightly recovery can help in recognizing individual responses to training and assist in optimizing training prescriptions.
先前关于强化训练对睡眠质量/数量影响的研究结果有些相互矛盾。此外，业余运动员经常跟踪各种睡眠指标，但这些指标与训练适应性的实际联系尚不清楚。本研究探讨了强化训练对睡眠和夜间恢复的影响，以及它们与训练适应性的关联。共有24名参与者（10名女性）进行了为期3周的基线训练期（BL）、为期2周的超负荷训练期（OL）和为期1周的恢复期（REC），随后是测试日（T1 - T3）。通过3000米跑步测试评估耐力表现。在所有阶段，使用腕戴式可穿戴设备监测夜间恢复信息，包括睡眠数量和质量、心率（HR）和心率变异性（HRV），以及结合多个参数并单独缩放结果的专有参数。此外，每天评估感知到的压力和肌肉酸痛。3000米跑步成绩从T1到T2有所提高（-1.2±1.7%，P = 0.006），从T1到T3也有所提高（-1.7±1.2%，P = 0.002）。从基线训练期的最后一周到超负荷训练期的最后一周，感知到的压力和肌肉酸痛增加（P < 0.001），但主观睡眠质量和夜间恢复指标保持不变。专有参数自主神经系统负荷（“ANS负荷”，结合了心率、心率变异性和呼吸频率）的超负荷训练期平均值，以及从基线训练期到超负荷训练期睡眠心率和心率变异性的变化，与3000米跑步时间的变化相关（P < 0.05）。总之，强化训练会损害主观恢复指标，而睡眠和夜间恢复指标没有表现出一致的变化。然而，夜间恢复存在显著的个体差异，这些差异也与训练适应性相关。因此，监测夜间恢复有助于识别个体对训练的反应，并有助于优化训练方案。
