A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes

This article was downloaded by: [University of Rochester] On: 18 August 2013, At: 23:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20

A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes Brent S. Rushall

a

a

San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA Published online: 14 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Brent S. Rushall (1990) A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2:1, 51-66, DOI: 10.1080/10413209008406420 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209008406420

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

Downloaded by [University of Rochester] at 23:22 18 August 2013

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY

2, 5 1-66 (1990)

A Tool for Measuring Stress Tolerance in Elite Athletes BRENTS. RUSHALL


San Diego State University San Diego, CA USA

A self-report inventory of sources oflife-stress and symptoms of stress is described. The tool can be used to determine the nature of an athlete’s response to training, particularly hidher capacity to tolerate training loads. Data are used to demonstrate the use of the inventory to determine i) training responses which are either too stressed or under-stressed, ii) the ideal amount of stress to promote the optimum level of training effort, iii) the influence of outside-of-sport stresses that interfere with the training response, iv) preliminary features of overtraining, v) reactions to jet-lag and travel fatigue, and vi) peaking responses.

It has been recognized over the past two decades that the stressors associated with Clite athletic performance are quite vaned and originate from outside as well as within the sporting environment. The reactivity of an athlete to all life stresses, including the activities associated with a sport, depends upon the number of stressors which exist at any particular time (Fenz, 1974). If one accepts the assertion that one’s tolerance for stress is finite (Selye, 1950), then the accumulated stresses associated with athletic environments could exceed an athlete’s finite capacity. Sources of stress can be facilitative (positive) or detrimental (negative) to behavior (Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1978). The response of an athlete depends upon the appraisal/coping capacity to each source of stress. It would be of advantage to both the coach and athlete to measure the sources and symptoms of stress which occur at any one particular time. Such knowledge could allow the training and handling of athletes to be modified appropriately to enhance the accommodations of the sporting experience (Zwaga, 1973). The symptoms of stressed reactions are idiosyncratic (Lazarus, 1966). Few, if any, athletes react in the same manner to the same stressors. Single physiological indices are inadequate for predicting or assessing the types of stressors which are involved with sporting environments (Carlile, 1 98 1; Rushall & Roaf, 1986). This is evidenced by the failure to replicate the Request for reprints should be sent to Brent S. Rushall, Department ofphysical Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-0171 51

1041-3200/90/005 I40665I O W 0

Copynghl 1990 by Association for Advancement of A p p l ~ d Spon Psychology

Ail nghts of reproduction in any form rcvrved


52

RUSH ALL

orignal training-stress caused T-wave inversion phenomenon with Australian swimmers reported by Carlile and Carlile (1 96 1). Behavioral indices of stress reaction are appropriate (Appley & Trumbull, 1967; Lazarus, 1966). The accurate measurement of the symptoms of stress experienced by an athlete would allow a coach to assess the degree of stress experienced. To understand an athlete’s responses to the specific stress of training, it is necessary to monitor the sources of stress outside of as well as in the sport. The measurement of stress responses needs to incorporate the individual patterns of symptoms which emerge.

Instrument Development The instrument that is the focus of this paper underwent an evolutionary form of development. The initial attempts to measure stress reactions through psychological methods were made in swimming environments. Thc rcquirement to produce a simple and reliable procedure was deemed to be important for applied sporting situations. Goodyear (1 973) reported that self-reporting was adequate for the evaluation of changes due to stress. A pencil-and-paper methodology appeared to be appropriate. A survey of swimming literature indicated that nine sources of life-stress could affect performance and that nineteen symptoms of stress reaction had been noted. An inventory of those sources and symptoms was constructed allowing a respondent to indicate whether each factor was “worse-thannormal” (negative), “normal,” or “better-than-normal” (positive). Five elite swimmers who were known to exhibit T-wave elevation and inversion as adaptation and failing-adaptation responses to training, served as subjects for validating the methodology. It was believed that if the number of negatively reported symptoms increased, it would reflect the onset of failing adaptation to exercise stress. If that onset was correlated to the T-wave response, then the methodology would be considered valid. This association was demonstrated in all subjects but with one modification, the number of self-report symptoms that indicated a deteriorating psychological state preceded the T-wave degradation by a period ranging from 9 to 15 days depending upon the subject. It was also noted that isolated T-wave depressions were related to transitory increases in both negative symptom and life-style segment reports. This exploratory work led to a more concerted effort to establish a self-report tool for measuring stress in applied sport situations. Vafidity.The first step in the development of this methodology was to conduct a more rigorous evaluation of life-stresses and reactions. The definition of 12 areas of life-stress and 42 symptoms of stress reaction resulted. Descriptions of these factors were subjected to content validation by nine competent authorities who were familiar with stress evaluation and high-level sports. They were asked to indicate if they had seen instances of the symptoms in athletes, and whether the sources of life-stress were appropriate for serious athletes, They were also encouraged to add extra items if they had not been listed. One further life-stress and two


MEASURING SPORT STRESS TOLERANCE

53

symptoms were added as a result of this procedure. Each item was labeled and defined by elements indicating representative situations and behaviors. The original three-alternative response option of negative, normal, and positive appraisal was retained. It was deemed that this accumulation of factors represented the scope of sources of stress and symptoms of stress reactions that were associated with sporting environments. Readability. A booklet of instructions, definitions and examples, and an answer sheet was constructed. Pupils in a sixth-grade elementary school class were asked to read the booklet content and indicate words that they could not understand. Seven definitions and four labels were altered as a result of this procedure. It was concluded that the wording of the items was sufficient to be understood by persons 11 years of age or older. Reliability. Since a valid and readable pool of items had been constructed, it was necessary to establish the reliability of each. The Nova Scotia Scientific Training Squad of competitive swimmers (N = 22; ages ranging from 11 to 19 years) served as subjects for this purpose. They were selected because of the potential to control environmental and lifestyle sources of stress. Multiple-testings were conducted to indicate the consistency of individual response patterns to replicated life-style and swimming training stressors. To effect such control subjects were instructed to follow a planned life-style for three days prior to each testing. Their coaches were instructed to give the same training programs across those three days for each of the five replications. Assessments were made on the second day of each weekend training camp. It was assumed that these control actions would produce consistent sets of life and training responses. Five evaluations were conducted, each being 14 days apart. Subjects were not allowed to review their previous responses. The reliability criterion was that if a stress source or symptom was not responded to in exactly the same manner on four of the five occasions by 80% of the subjects, the item would be deleted. This criterion was employed to indicate the reliability and consistency of individual response patterns. After this analysis, 9 sources of life-stress and 25 symptoms remained. The majority of the symptoms that were deleted were those which embraced psychological concepts (e.g., depression, aggression, vitality). The factors which remained after the validity and reliability analyses were then published as the Stress Indexfor Swimmers (Rushall, 1975a, 1975b). Structure. Consequent adaptation and use of the tool has verified its general utility for all athletes (Rushall, 1981). It is now published in booklet form as the Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes (DALDA) (Rushall, 198 1, 1987) and is promoted as being an assessment tool for evaluating whether an athlete is stressed and if so, what are the factors leading to the stressed condition. Figure 1 illustrates the answer sheet for the tool. The first part of the inventory (Part A) describes the general stress sources that occur in the everyday living of an athlete (diet, home-life, schooVwork, friends, training, climate, sleep, recreation, and health). Table 1 lists the definitions of those sources. The individual is asked to

RUSHALL

54

ANSWER SHEET Name:

..................................................

Date:

.........................................

RESPOND BY CIRCLING the appropriate response alongside each item. a = worse than normal

b = normal

c = better thnn normal


PART A 1.

a b c

Diet

8.

a b c Irritnbility

2.

s b c

9.

R

~

WeiQht C

3.

a b c

Home-life School/college/work

10.

R

b c

Throat

4.

a b c

Friends

11.

a b c Internal

5.

a b c SDort training

12.

a b c

6.

a b c

Climate

13.

a b c Technique strength

7.

a b c

Sleep

14.

8.

a b c

Recreation

15.

a h c Enough sleeo a b c Between sessions recovery

9.

a b c

Sealth

Unexplained nches

16.

a b c

General weakness

17.

a b c

Interest

responses

18.

a b c

Arguments

Total lvb'fresponses

19.

a b c Skin rashes

Total 'W responses

20.

a b c

21.

a b c Training effort

Total

'r~lt

Record these values and the day's date on the DATA LOG PART A

PART B 1.

a b c

Muscle p i n s

2.

a b c

Techniques

3.

a b c

Tiredness

4.

a b c Need for a rest

5.

a b c Suoplementarv work

6.

a b c

7.

a b c Recovery time

Boredom

Congestion

22.

a b c

23.

a b c Swellings

24.

a b c

Likability

25.

a b c

Running nose

Tote1

Iran

Temper

responses

Total "b" responses Total V1responses Record these values on and the day's date on the DATA LOG PART B

Figure I . A sample answer sheet for the DALDA booklet. Part A allows for recording selfperceptions of sources of stress in an athlete's lire while Part B lists possible symptoms of stress. The number of responses for each category is totalled on the answer sheet. Those numbers are then transferred to a cumulative graph contained in the booklet.


55

Table 1 Definitions for Part A (sources of life stress) for “The Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes.” -


1 . Iker. Consider whether you arc eating regularly and in adequate amounts. Are you missing

meals? Do you like your meals? 2 . Home-lrfe. Have you had any arguments with your parents, brothers, or sisters? Are you being asked to do too much around the house? How is your relationship with your wife/ husband? Have there been any unusual happenings at home concerning your family? 3. School/Coliege/Work. Consider the amount of work that you are doing there. Are you required to do more or less at home or in your own time? How are your grades or evaluations? Think of how you are interacting with administrators, teachcrs, or bosses. 4. Friends. Have you lost or gained any friends? Have there been any arguments or problems with your friends? Are they complimenting you more or less? Do you spend more or less time with them? 5. Training and Exercise. How much and how often are you training? Are the levels of effort that are required easy or hard? Are you able to recover adequately between efforts? Are you enjoying your sport? 6. Climate. Is it too hot, cold, wet, or dry? I . Sleep. Are you getting enough sleep? Are you getting too much? Can you sleep when you want to? 8. Rrcreafion. Consider the activities that you do outside of your sport. Are they taking up too much time? Do they compete with your application to your sport? 9. Jlealrh. Do you have any infections, a cold, or other temporary health problems?

appraise the nature of the stressor at the time of answering. The information that is generated indicates those areas of the athlete’s normal daily activities which are perceived as being unusually stressful. The importance of this section is that it locates any general stressors which may be detracting from an athlete’s exercise-stress adaptation potential. Athletic performances can deteriorate when stressors other than exercise are incurred. Thus, this analysis could be used to locate possible causes for poor performances in training or competition. When extraneous stress sources are indicated, steps could be taken to alleviate them. Part B of the inventory is used to determine what stress-reaction symptoms exist in the athlete. Table 2 lists the symptom definitions. The pattern and number of negatively appraised symptoms could be used to conclude whether an athlete is or is not being adversely affected by life-stressors. When the number of “worse-than-normal” responses increases markedly, that is, the athlete reports an unusual number of stress symptoms, it usually indicates that the athlete is unable to cope with the stress of life at that time. The DALDA can be used repeatedly throughout a period of training. It provides consistent, frequent evaluation of an athlete’s stress reactions. The answer sheet requires the athlete to total all responses in each category for both test parts. The data are graphed to form an historical record. Thus, a marked increase in the total “worse-than-normal” responses in

56

RUSHALL

Table 2 Definitions of Part B (symptoms of stress) for the “Daily Analyses of Life Demands for Athletes.”


I . Muscle pains. Do you have sore joints and/or pains in your muscles? 2. Techniques. How do your techniques feel? 3. Tiredness, What is your general state of tiredness? 4. Need for a rest. Do you feel that you need a rest between training sessions? 5 . Supplementary work. How strong do you feel when you do supplementary training (e.g., weights, resistance work, stretching)? 6 . Boredom. How boring is training? 7. Recovery time. Do the recovery times between each training effort need to be longer? 8. Irritability. Are you irritable? Do things get on your nerves? 9. Weight. How is your weight? 10. Throat. Have you noticed your throat being sore or imtated? 1 1 . Internal. How do you feel internally? Have you had constipation, upset stomachs, etc.? 12. Unexplained aches. Do you have any unexplained aches or pains? 13. Technique strength. How strong do your techniques feel? 14. Enough sleep. Are you getting enough sleep? 15. Between sessions recovery. Are you tired before you start your second training session of the day? 16. General weakness. Do you feel weak all over? 17. Interest. Do you feel that you are maintaining your interest in your sport? 18. Arguments. Are you having squabbles and arguments with people? 19. Skin rashes. Do you have any unexplained skin rashes or imtations? 20. Congestion. Are you experiencing congestion in the nose and/or sinuses? 21. Training eflorf. Do you feel that you can give your best effort at training? 2 2 . Temper. Do you lose your temper? 23. Swellings. Do you have any lymph gland swellings under your arms, below your ears, in your groin, etc.? 24. Likability. Do people seem to like you? 25. Running nose. Do you have a running nose?

either part serves as a warning for coaches to take corrective actions before more serious states are developed. It can be incorporated into a log book with a supply of answer sheets as was done with the Australian Olympic Swimming Team in 1980 (Rushall, 1979). The administration, answering, and scoring of the inventory can be done totally by the athlete. He/she should maintain the historical response charts. When changes in trends are evidenced the athlete should indicate to the coach that consultation is required. Alternatively, the coach can periodically scan the progress chart for trend changes. This process increases the coach’s understanding of an athlete’s specific reactions to a unique set of life-stresses. The athlete-coach relationship could modify the effective use of this instrument. If the association is positive and trusting then responses will be accurately recorded whereas responses will be compromised if difficulties exist. Under some circumstances it may be necessary to have an



57

intermediary, such as a sport psychologist, relate the response implications to the coach. The descriptions of tool use in this paper assume that a desirable association exists between the athlete and coach. The inventory has a number of valuable benefits which warrant its adoption by coaches. It provides important information about an athlete’s life that is not normally available under traditional coaching circumstances. It locates stress reactions and sources of stress. This assessment technique has potential use in all sports. Limitation. The nature of this instrument limits its evaluative properties to intraindividual comparisons of frequency counts of nominal categories. The ascription of numbers to the response categories would be a spurious procedure. The principal reason why interindividual or group comparisons cannot be made resides in the nature of the instrument items. It is inappropriate to assume that two individuals will perceive a labeled concept in exactly the same terms. Because of such differences, numbers cannot be combined for they would not represent the same entity. Scale scores are not developed with this tool for the items and response option have neither ratio nor interval scale properties. Uses of the DALDA The relationship between psychological assessments and stressed states is the basis of the structure for the DALDA booklet. The subjective reporting of psychological states can indicate the initial onset of excessive stress in the body (Morgan, 1980; Rushall, 1975a; Rushall & Roaf, 1986). Psychological self-reports precede the more debilitating effects of physiological overtraining. Self-assessments of stressed states in sports is the best way of monitoring reactions of athletes to the various stages of training (Carlile, 1981; Rushall & Roaf, 1986).’The following sections describe how to use the DALDA booklet for monitoring features of athletes’ personal states during training. The Training Response. Athletes in serious training usually attempt to attain a state of maximum adaptation to exercise stress. This is known as achieving the “stage of resistance” (Selye, 1950) where the majority of the body’s resources are applied to coping with training loads. The cost of this specialized adaptation is that resistance to other stresses is lowered. Diminished capacities in other areas of living are often evident when an athlete trains intensely. This means that as an athlete goes through cycles of fatigue and recovery, there are a number of “symptoms” of the stress of adaptation that occur. The DALDA booklet is a tool for measuring those symptoms. The theoretical formulation for this assessment method is that during I Dr. Don McKenzie of Vancouver, British Columbia has recently completed a study on the measurement of overtraining in canoeists. It has been communicated to this author that psychological self-reports are among the best indices for measuring overtraining and highly fatigued states.


58

RUSHALL

serious training there should be a number of symptoms that are reported by an individual that are “worse” than if the individual were not training at all. When an athlete copes with the stress of training loads, and is adapting in a satisfactory manner, the symptoms of coping are relatively stable. If an athlete works too hard in a training session, with the consequent result of requiring a longer-than-normal recovery period, the number of symptoms that will be reported will be increased over what is normal. Thus, changes in the number of self-reported symptoms of adaptation to training are the clues that indicate whether an athlete is training too hard (the number of negative symptoms increases) or training too casily (the number of negative symptoms decreases). The number of symptoms reported as being “worse-than-normal,” “normal,” or “better-than-normal” indicate the training response of an athlete.

Monitoring Daily Training When an athlete is able to cope with training loads that are not complicated by outside-of-the-sport stressors, the number of symptoms that are reported on a day-to-day basis are relatively consistent. This consistent response indicates specific adaptation to the stress of training. It will last for a period of time, that period being dependent upon the frequency of training sessions and intensity of training loads. The demonstration of consistent self-assessments of training-stress symptoms over a period of at least two weeks is known as the “window of appropriate training response.” That “window” is the baseline or comparison set of responses against which training assessments are made. To establish the training response “window,” the following procedures are recommended: 1. Complete the DALDA assessment procedure on a daily basis for a period of from two to four weeks. This period should start after the athlete has become used to training. It should not include the first three weeks of a training season. 2. Respond to the DALDA at the same time each day, preferably before an afternoon training session. This timing will give an index of the athlete’s ability to recover from the previous training session. 3. Continue the assessments until the total number of “worse-thannormal” symptoms that are reported are relatively stable. In early assessments there may be some variability which results from “getting used to” the measurement procedure. Stability occurs when the data points for the alternatives marked “a” in Part B of the inventory appear to be of a restricted range. Figure 2 exhibits a set of stable data that varied for three assessments and then seemed to settle between a range of three to five symptoms. The nine measures in that range are then deemed to be the “window” of the training response. It is suggested that “windows” be considered after at least 10 data points have been collected. There could be considerable individual variability in i) the number of days it takes to establish a “window,” and ii) the number of symptoms that exist in the


59

25 20


15 10 5

0

Alternate Recording Days Figure 2. A training-response “window” for “a” (“worse-than-normal”) alternatives on Part B of the DALDA booklet. Data points were collected once every two days. When data points are obtained daily and training loads are carefully planned, the day-to-day variations in symptoms which arc worse than normal usually will be less variable. This “window” appears to contain two cycles of response. The tool is sensitive to locating such cycles.

“window.” One should not be alarmed if the number of symptoms is high or low. It should be remembered that the data are self-reports and the criteria used by individuals for reporting states that are altered can vary greatly. 4. When athletes have entered training from an untrained state, or when they are young, it is possible for them to have several “windows.” As they get stronger and use more physical capacities the symptoms of adequate training stress change in type and number. Thus, for a time after the commencement of training a “window” will be displayed. Then with a change in type of training to suit new capacities a new “window” will most likely occur. With such athletes periodic tests should be made to see if they can tolerate different training loads and frequencies. The frequency of recording in the booklet should be determined by the coach. If training loads are primarily of low intensity, then every other day should be satisfactory. If training loads are heavy, then daily analyses are recommended. The aim of coaching should be to provide training stresses which will result in athletes reporting the number of negative symptoms which will fall in the “window.” Excessive Training Sessions. If a data point from a day’s analysis is higher than the values included in the “window,” then it could be interpreted that the previous session load was too hard. The extra symptoms that are reported mean a lack of adequate recovery. The subsequent training session should be of a lesser intensity to allow needed recovery to take

60

RUSH ALL

25 v)

w c

2

20

0

0

15

-a Downloaded by [University of Rochester] at 23:22 18 August 2013

b

0

t a E

1-h

Excessive data point

10

5 0

Alternate Recording Days Figure 3. A training-response “window” for “a” (“worse-than-normal”) alternatives on Part B of the DALDA booklet. The last data point is outside the “window” indicating that the next training session should be lighter than usual to allow the athlete to return to experiencing the number of symptoms associated with adaptation to exercise stress.

place. Increased training loads usually produce greater states of fatigue, require longer recovery periods, and cause an athlete to experience more training-stress symptoms that are worse than usual. Thus, the monitoring of between-training-sessionsrecovery is possible with this measurement procedure. When symptoms are more numerous than those in the “window,” it could be concluded that the previous training was too demanding. Figure 3 illustrates a recording that occurs outside of the “window.” Training Sessions WhichAre Too Easy.When the number of symptoms that are recorded fall outside of but below the “window,” then the athlete is not being stressed by training to the degree that produces optimum adaptation. The effects and fatigue resulting from training are not as much as could be tolerated. It could be interpreted that too much recovery was being experienced and that the athlete was not undergoing an optimum level of specific training adaptation. The coaching response for an occurrence like this would be to increase the training load of the next training session. The recording of symptoms yields an indication of how an athlete is reacting to the stress of training. Changes in the number of symptoms indicate changes in the training response. Subsequent training loads should be increased or decreased to return the number of reported symptoms back to the “window” of training responses. There is considerable variability between athletes as to how much training can be tolerated and how susceptible they are to excessive training loads.



61

Monitoring Overtraining After a period of time, athletes lose the capacity to adapt to training stimuli. Selye (1950) designated this phenomenon as the “Stage of failing adaptation.” In sports, this stage is commonly referred to as an overtrained state. Should this occur in athletes using the DALDA booklet, it will be observed that the return to the “window” does not occur as easily as when the athlete is adapting. When workloads are reduced on three succcssive occasions and there are no outstanding stressors occurring in other aspects of the athlete’s life, but a reduction in “worse-than-normal” symptoms does not occur, it usually can be determined that an overtrained stage has been reached. At least one complete unloading microcycle should be implemented immediately in this situation. When athletes train consistently year-round, there comes a time when no further performance improvement is possible due to physiological adaptation. Increased workloads do not produce any further performance improvements. Athlete responses in the “window” indicate adequate tolerance of training loads in a physiological sense. The physiological capacities of an individual are limited in their potential for improvement. Thus, “windows” of stress symptom reports finally indicate the state of maximum physiological adaptation that is possible. Figure 4 illustrates recordings that indicate responses that represent an overtrained state. Monitoring Travel Disruptions There are uses other than the monitoring of training that are appropriate for this booklet. A common one for serious athletes is the assessment of recovery from time-zone shifts (“jet-lag”) and travel fatigue. The stresses that result from travel increase the number of “worse-than-normal” symptoms that are reported. More symptoms occur but they are not necessarily those which are reported when training is excessive. This is because the stresses are different. A coach can monitor the type and number of symptoms that are reported as a consequence of travel. Light training sessions should only be considered until the number of negative symptoms returns to “window” values. Heavy training sessions during this recovery and adaptation period would serve no good purpose. They would only delay the adaptivehecovery reactions of the athlete. Figure 5 exhibits the jetlag responses of some Canadian Olympic Ski-jumpers at the 1984 Olympic Games. Monitoring Outside Stressors The discussion above has generally assumed that exercise stress is the only factor that is excessive in an athlete’s life. That rarely is the case. Since an individual has a finite capacity to handle life-stresses, it is possible that symptoms associated with increased stress may be caused by the accumulated effects of training and other stressors. Thus, it is essential that on a daily basis the possible incursion of other life-stresses should be considered. Before a decision is made about altering an athlete’s training load be-

RUSHALL

62

20

15 10

5


0

8. Stage of Resistance

A. Alarm Reaction Stage

C. Stage of Failing Adaptation

I 20

15 10

5 0 Figure 4. Sample “a” (“worse-than-normal”) symptoms associated with adaptation to exercise stress. The first stage, with elevated symptom numbers, is related to the alarm reaction to the onset of training. The subsequent “window” is associated with the stage of resistance (successful adaptation). Within these data plots, there were two occasions when heavier-than-normal training sessions caused responses to occur outside the “window.” The second graph depicts the transition from resistance (“window”) to the stage of failing adaptation (overtraining). At that time, the data points remain outside the “window” even though training loads are reduced. Undesirable responses usually decrease when recovering from overtrained states.

cause data have fallen outside the “window,” the number of life-stresses that are reported as being “worse-than-normal” should be considered. If they have increased then it is possible that events other than training loads have caused the excessive symptoms to be reported. If that is the case, then the athlete and coach together should attempt to reduce those outside stressors for they detract from the exercise-tolerance capacity of the athlete. When outside-of-sport stressors are reduced, athletes should

MEASURING SPORT STRESS TOLERANCE ~

g)

.-C

E

63

Jet-lag and travel fatigue

20 15

a

a : a

10

. I -


0

Recording Days Figure 5. “A” (“worse-than-normal”) symptom daily recordings for three I984 Olympic athletes that illustrate the excessive stresses caused by time-zone shifts (jet-lag) and travel Fatigue.

be able to handle adequately heavy training loads, which in turn produce bigger training effects (improvements). The above concerns are the reasons why Part A is included in the D I ~ L D Aprocedure. The influence of outside-of-sport events on training responses is very marked and now can be measured. Coaching and training decisions should always consider such influences. Figure 6 illustrates changes in reporting symptoms of stress when the number of stress sources increases. Monitoring Peaking One further valuable use of this measurement procedure is the monitoring of the peaking state. Athletes who record values in the “window” are not capable of a maximum performance. A period of reduced training loads is necessary for peak performances to occur. With this tool, peaked states are indicated when the number of “betterthan-normal” symptoms increases. This is why graphs of the three classes of response are maintained. Peaked states should prepare an athlete to feel as good as possible. Thus, an increase in the number of “c” (“betterthan-normal”) symptom responses along with a reduction in the “a” (“worse-than-normal”) symptoms should be evidenced. Figure 7 illustrates recording changes that occur as the peaking-state is developed.

Summary This analysis technique measures how athletes feel at any particular time. The appraisal of various symptoms of stress indicates responses to stress. The greater the number of symptoms that appear to be worse than

RUSHALL

64

\

Excessively Heavy Training

,f

Reduced Trai.ning

9 6


3 0 25 20 15 10 5

0

Alternate Recording Days Figure 6. The relationship between excessive outside stressors plus exercise stress and selfrcported stress symptoms for an elite age-group swimmer. The “worse-than-normal” recordings for both parts of the DALDA booklet are represented (from Rushall & Roaf, 1986). The lowest values were recorded when workloads were changed from excessively heavy to light.

usual, the greater an athlete is stressed. It is on this basis that responses to training stress and life-stresses in general are monitored. It is now possible to measure the following features:

i. training responses which are either too stressed or under-stressed; ii. the ideal amount of stress to promote the optimum level of training effort; iii. the influence of outside-of-sport stressors that interfere with the training response; iv. preliminary features of overtraining; v. reactions to travel fatigue and jet-lag; and vi. peaking responses. The use of this tool should promote better coaching decisions that will assist athletes to improve performances in a more efficient manner.


65

25 20


15 10 5 0

25 20 15 10 5

0

Alternate Recording Days Figure 7. The relationship between stress symptoms recorded as “worse-than-normal” and “better-than-normal” during specific and peak training phases for an tlite sculler. The increase in “better” and decrease in “worse” symptoms together indicate that a peakedreadiness state is being attained.

REFERENCES Appley, M. H., & Trumbull, R. (1967). Psychologicalstress. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Carlile, F. (198 I). Fifty years of swimming research. In Proceedings of‘the Pacific Coaches’ Conference. Sydney, Australia: Australian Swimming Union. Carlile, F., & Carlile, U. (196 1). Physiological studies of Australian Olympic swimmers in hard training. Australian Journal of Physical Education (reprint).


66

RUSHALL

Fenz, W. D. (1974). Arousal and performance of novice parachutists to multiple sources of conflict and stress. Studia Psychologica, 16. 133-144. Goodyear, M. D. (1973). Stress, adrenocortical activity and sleep habits. Ergonomics, 16. 679681. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGrawHill. Morgan, W. P. (May, 1980). Psychological monitoring of athletic stress syndrome. A paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, Las Vegas. Rushall, B. S. (1975a). Applied psychology in sports. In B. S. Rushall (Ed.), The status of psychomotor learning and sport p.qychology research. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Sports Science Associates. Rushall, B. S. (197%). Psychological aids for swimming coaches. In R. M. Ousley (Ed.), I975 American swimming coaches association world clinic yearbook. Fort Lauderdale: American Swimming Coaches’ Association. Rushall, R. S. ( I 979). The swimmer’s race preparation checklists. Sydney: The Forbes and Ursula Carlilc Swimming Organization. Rushall, B. S. (198 1). A tool for measuring stress in elite athletes. In Y. Hanin (Ed.), Stress and anxiety in sport. Moscow: Physical Culture and Sport Publishers. Rushall, B. S. (1987). Daily analyses of life demandsfor athletes. Spring Valley, CA: Sports Science Associates-Canada. Rushall, B. S., & Roaf, W. A. (September, 1986). Physiological, sociological, and psychological responses of training-adapted talented age-group swimmers under three levels of training stress. A paper presented at the XXIII FIMS World Congress of Sports Medicine, Brisbane, Australia. Sarason, 1. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. J. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the life expericnccs survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(5), 9 32-946. Selye, H. (1950). Stress. Montreal: Acta Inc. Zwaga, H. J. (1973). Psychophysiological reactions to mental tasks: Effort or stress. Ergonomics, 16, 6 1-67. Manuscript received April, 1989, revision accepted January, 1990.