Advanced search
1 file | 609.73 KB Add to list

The fitness–fatigue model : what’s in the numbers?

Kobe Vermeire (UGent) , Michael Ghijs (UGent) , Jan Bourgois (UGent) and Jan Boone (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this commentary is to outline some of the pitfalls when using the fitness-fatigue model to unravel the interaction between training load and performance. By doing so, we encourage sport scientists and coaches to interpret the parameters from the model with some extra caution. Conclusions: Caution is needed when interpreting the fitness-fatigue model since the parameter values are influenced by the starting parameter values, the modeling technique, and the input of the model. Also, the use of general constants should be avoided since they do not account for interindividual differences and differences between training-load methods. Therefore, we advise sport scientists and coaches to use the model as a way to work more data-informed rather than working data-driven.
Keywords
impulse-response model, performance modeling, periodization, training data, training load, PERFORMANCE, RESPONSES

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 609.73 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Vermeire, Kobe, et al. “The Fitness–Fatigue Model : What’s in the Numbers?” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE, vol. 17, no. 5, 2022, pp. 810–13, doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494.
APA
Vermeire, K., Ghijs, M., Bourgois, J., & Boone, J. (2022). The fitness–fatigue model : what’s in the numbers? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE, 17(5), 810–813. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494
Chicago author-date
Vermeire, Kobe, Michael Ghijs, Jan Bourgois, and Jan Boone. 2022. “The Fitness–Fatigue Model : What’s in the Numbers?” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE 17 (5): 810–13. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Vermeire, Kobe, Michael Ghijs, Jan Bourgois, and Jan Boone. 2022. “The Fitness–Fatigue Model : What’s in the Numbers?” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE 17 (5): 810–813. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494.
Vancouver
1.
Vermeire K, Ghijs M, Bourgois J, Boone J. The fitness–fatigue model : what’s in the numbers? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE. 2022;17(5):810–3.
IEEE
[1]
K. Vermeire, M. Ghijs, J. Bourgois, and J. Boone, “The fitness–fatigue model : what’s in the numbers?,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 810–813, 2022.
@article{8747394,
  abstract     = {{Purpose: The purpose of this commentary is to outline some of the pitfalls when using the fitness-fatigue model to unravel the interaction between training load and performance. By doing so, we encourage sport scientists and coaches to interpret the parameters from the model with some extra caution. Conclusions: Caution is needed when interpreting the fitness-fatigue model since the parameter values are influenced by the starting parameter values, the modeling technique, and the input of the model. Also, the use of general constants should be avoided since they do not account for interindividual differences and differences between training-load methods. Therefore, we advise sport scientists and coaches to use the model as a way to work more data-informed rather than working data-driven.}},
  author       = {{Vermeire, Kobe and Ghijs, Michael and Bourgois, Jan and Boone, Jan}},
  issn         = {{1555-0265}},
  journal      = {{INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE}},
  keywords     = {{impulse-response model,performance modeling,periodization,training data,training load,PERFORMANCE,RESPONSES}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{810--813}},
  title        = {{The fitness–fatigue model : what’s in the numbers?}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0494}},
  volume       = {{17}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: