ABSTRACT
Athletes are exposed to various psychological and physiological stressors, such as losing matches and high training loads. Understanding and improving the resilience of athletes is therefore crucial to prevent performance decrements and psychological or physical problems. In this review, resilience is conceptualized as a dynamic process of bouncing back to normal functioning following stressors. This process has been of wide interest in psychology, but also in the physiology and sports science literature (e.g. load and recovery). To improve our understanding of the process of resilience, we argue for a collaborative synthesis of knowledge from the domains of psychology, physiology, sports science, and data science. Accordingly, we propose a multidisciplinary, dynamic, and personalized research agenda on resilience. We explain how new technologies and data science applications are important future trends (1) to detect warning signals for resilience losses in (combinations of) psychological and physiological changes, and (2) to provide athletes and their coaches with personalized feedback about athletes' resilience.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The study of load and recovery gained significant interest in the last decades, given its important value in decreasing the likelihood of injuries and improving performance. So far, findings are typically reported on the group level, whereas practitioners are most often interested in applications at the individual level. Hence, the aim of the present research is to examine to what extent group-level statistics can be generalized to individual athletes, which is referred to as the "ergodicity issue." Nonergodicity may have serious consequences for the way we should analyze, and work with, load and recovery measures in the sports field. METHODS: The authors collected load, that is, rating of perceived exertion × training duration, and total quality of recovery data among youth male players of a professional football club. This data were collected daily across 2 seasons and analyzed on both the group and the individual level. RESULTS: Group- and individual-level analysis resulted in different statistical outcomes, particularly with regard to load. Specifically, SDs within individuals were up to 7.63 times larger than SDs between individuals. In addition, at either level, the authors observed different correlations between load and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the process of load and recovery in athletes is nonergodic, which has important implications for the sports field. Recommendations for training programs of individual athletes may be suboptimal, or even erroneous, when guided by group-level outcomes. The utilization of individual-level analysis is key to ensure the optimal balance of individual load and recovery.
