With athletes constantly searching for ways to improve performance, a common pattern is the compression of more training into the same amount of time. An increase in stimulus however is not linearly related to an increase in performance. Increase in stimulus results in an increased requirement for recovery. With more stimulus (training), and less recovery (resting), a point is reached where the application of more training becomes counter-productive.

This is expressed in figure one. A small amount of training (training volume on the horizontal x axis) elicits a drastic response (benefit on the vertical y axis). The rate of return tapers off (though continues to increase at a lower rate) as more training is added. The apex of the curve indicates the point where the ideal state has been reached. Beyond this point, the addition of further stimulus causes a reduction in performance. The reduction is drastic, with overtraining causing considerable system wide failure of performance.

Figure 1

Theoretically, if recovery can be sufficient to repair the damage caused by training, the line of improvement will continue to infinity. This of course is only a theoretical template, and in reality this is simply not the case.

There becomes a point where 'hard work' becomes detrimental. The further back we can push that point, the more we can train to maximise performance. The way to move that point is by improving rate of recovery.

Consider the question of whether there are further initiatives (in addition to improving rate of recovery) that could be taken to push the curve above to the right. Ways in which we can increase the amount of training we can do without the negative effects of overtraining. What if we could modify the delivery of the stimulus itself to increase the amount of stimulus we can safely apply?

We have developed a template which aims to do just this. It requires a long term approach to programming and a departure from 'what do I feel like doing today?'
Each type of session you complete is assigned a value based on its effect on your neuromuscular system. When assigning values we take into account:

  • Session type (eg: strength/conditioning etc.).
  • Size of the muscle groups being trained.
  • Amount of load lifted.
  • Volume.
  • The presence or absence of rest during the session.
  • Empirical experience with how various session types 'feel'.

We've found a rating of 1-4 is effective in categorising almost every session type and results in a Neuromuscular Fatigue Rating (NMF rating). A NMF rating of one is attributed to a session with low neuromuscular fatigue, while four indicates the highest level of neuromuscular fatigue.

Examples of ratings are:

NMF 4:

  • Sprint, agility and resisted sprint (including hill sprints, stair climb sprints, prowler pushes, sled drags at very high intensity).
  • Heavy and moderately heavy barbell metcon sessions.
  • Very high rep bodyweight stamina.

NMF 3:

  • Power lifting sessions.
  • Olympic lifting sessions.
  • Conditioning sessions (standard 'WODs').
  • Interval training sessions (monostructural).
  • Swim sessions.

NMF 2:

  • Continuous cardiovascular sessions (eg: 5km run/row etc).

NMF 1:

  • Weighted upper body bodyweight strength sessions.
  • Low or moderate rep bodyweight stamina involving only one movement.

Using this rating system, we can plan waves of training, with a wave beginning with a high NMF load and reducing as the wave progresses. The session types with the highest NMF ratings are usually also those which you will elicit the greatest benefit from completing fresh - so this system works well.

A template of two waves per week has proven effective. By adding together the values of the sessions you complete every day, you can determine an accurate representation of the effect of that day's training on your neuromuscular system. The loads of a high volume and intensity training program (3-4 months from intended peak) are outlined below. The first wave is three days long, culminating with a lighter day (Wednesday) with a rating of five (this day includes no sessions with a rating of over 2). Wave two is four days long. The extra day of training justifies a complete rest day at the end of the wave with a rating of 0.

Monday: 9
Tuesday: 9
Wednesday: 5
Thursday: 10
Friday: 9
Saturday: 8
Sunday: 0

Graphically, this system of training can be expressed in figure two, with the wave pattern becoming apparent.

Figure 2

This is a practical template that can be applied to training to ensure that the point of diminished returns is pushed as far to the right of the curve as possible. It allows higher volume of training while minimising the negative effects of this training.

Dan Williams is an Accredited Exercise Physiologist and Exercise Scientist, Director of Range of Motion CrossFit (http://www.rangeofmotion.net.au/) and is a three times CrossFit Regionals Competitor.

Tags: training Dan Williams CrossFit