Monitoring training, performance, biomarkers, and psychological state throughout a competitive season: a case study of a triathlete

Harry P Cintineo; Marissa L Bello; Alan J Walker; Alexa J Chandler; Bridget A McFadden; Shawn M Arent

doi:10.1007/s00421-023-05414-x

Monitoring training, performance, biomarkers, and psychological state throughout a competitive season: a case study of a triathlete

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2024 Jan 18. doi: 10.1007/s00421-023-05414-x. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Harry P Cintineo¹, Marissa L Bello², Alan J Walker³, Alexa J Chandler⁴, Bridget A McFadden⁵, Shawn M Arent⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Kinesiology, Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, MO, USA.
² Department of Human Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
³ Department of Exercise Science, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA, USA.
⁴ Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
⁵ Department of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Science, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
⁶ Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. sarent@mailbox.sc.edu.

PMID: 38236302
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-023-05414-x

Abstract

Introduction: Ironman triathletes undergo high workloads during competition preparation which can result in nonfunctional overreaching or overtraining syndrome if not matched with adequate recovery.

Purpose: The purpose of this case study was to observe changes in physiological and psychological status over the course of a competitive season in a free-living triathlete.

Methods: The subject was a 41-year-old triathlete competing in three 113.1-km events. Over the course of a 40-week period, the participant arrived at the laboratory every 4 weeks and underwent body composition testing via air displacement plethysmography, a blood draw for analysis of various biomarkers, and a treadmill-based lactate threshold test. Workload during training and competitions was monitored via a wearable heart rate-monitoring device.

Results: Throughout the season, training volume remained high (12.5 ± 3.4 h/week) and body mass and fat-free mass (FFM) continuously decreased, while biomarkers including cortisol, testosterone, and markers of immunological status exhibited minor changes. Laboratory performance remained relatively consistent, while competition performance continually improved. Following the completion of the competitive period, training volume decreased, FFM remained below baseline levels, free cortisol increased, and both free and total testosterone decreased.

Conclusions: Workload and recovery seem to have been properly managed throughout the season, evidenced by minimal fluctuations in endocrine and immunological markers. The reason for changes observed in testosterone, cortisol, and body composition following the last competition is unclear, though it may be attributed to changes in stressors and recovery practices outside of training. It is recommended that athletes follow a structured plan during the transition period into the offseason to ensure recovery of physiological state and to set up a productive offseason.

Keywords: Athlete monitoring; Body composition; Cortisol; Ironman; Testosterone.