功能性过量训练的双重性:内涵厘定、生理表征与界定标准的再审视

    The Duality of Functional Overreaching: A Reassessment of Conceptual Definition, Physiological Characterization, and Diagnostic Criteria

    • 摘要: 功能性过量训练(functional overreaching,FOR),作为运动训练中常见的短期运动表现下降现象,核心特征在于兼具适应促进与疲劳累积的双重潜在作用,既可诱导超量恢复带来运动表现提升,又可能发展为非功能性过量训练(non-functional overreaching,NFOR),甚至过度训练综合征(overtraining syndrome,OTS)。目前,运动科学领域对该双重属性的作用结果仍无统一定论。通过系统梳理FOR的概念界定、生理特征与诊断标准,归纳支持和反对FOR应用必要性的研究证据,对现有诊断方法的优缺点展开评述。FOR状态下,机体呈现复杂的生理应激整合反应,涉及心血管功能调控、自主神经调节及免疫应答等多系统变化,这些反应共同构成FOR双重效应的内在生理基础。尽管“疲劳−适应”模型支持FOR可作为诱导超量恢复的合理训练手段,但越来越多的实证研究,尤其是完成相同训练负荷后的FOR组与急性疲劳(acute fatigue,AF)组受试者的对照研究显示,FOR组在恢复期的运动表现提升效果往往不及AF组。尽管基于诱导模型的FOR诊断标准研究较多,但面对不同项目特征的特异性方法仍需不断验证。未来研究需重点明确FOR双重作用的分子机制,建立覆盖多维度指标的综合评估体系,精准识别从可逆疲劳向不可逆病理状态转化的临界阈值,结合不同项目特征制定个体化FOR诊断与动态监测方案。

       

      Abstract: Functional overreaching (FOR) is a common phenomenon in athletic training characterized by a short-term decline in performance and a dual potential: it may both promote adaptation and accumulate fatigue. Under favorable conditions, it can induce supercompensation and enhance performance, but under excessive stress it may progress to non-functional overreaching (NFOR) or overtraining syndrome (OTS). The sports science community has not yet reached a consensus on which outcome this dual nature will produce. This review systematically examines the conceptual definition, physiological characteristics, and diagnostic criteria of FOR, synthesizes conflicting evidence for and against the application of FOR, and evaluates the strengths and limitations of current diagnostic methods. Research indicates that the FOR state elicits an integrated complex physiological stress response, involving changes in multiple systems including cardiovascular function, autonomic nervous regulation, and immune responses. These responses collectively form the intrinsic physiological substrate underlying the dual effects of FOR. Although the “fatigue-adaptation” model supports FOR as a legitimate training strategy to induce supercompensation, a growing body of empirical evidence—particularly from comparative studies of FOR and acutely fatigued (AF) athletes who completed identical training loads—indicates that the performance gains during recovery are often smaller in the FOR group than in the AF group. Meanwhile, despite extensive research on induction-model-based diagnostic criteria for FOR, sport-specific methods tailored to different disciplines require further practical validation. Future research should focus on elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying the dual effects of FOR, developing a multidimensional comprehensive assessment system, precisely identifying the critical threshold marking the transition from reversible fatigue to irreversible pathological state, and establishing individualized diagnostic and dynamic monitoring protocols tailored to sport-specific characteristics.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回