PURPOSE: Assessment of muscle recovery is essential for the daily fine-tuning of training load in competitive sports, but individual differences may limit the diagnostic accuracy of group-based reference ranges. This article reports an attempt to develop individualized reference ranges using a Bayesian approach comparable to that developed for the Athlete Biological Passport. METHODS: Urea and creatine kinase (CK) were selected as indicators of muscle recovery. For each parameter, prior distributions and repeated-measures SDs were characterized based on data of 883 squad athletes (1758 data points, 1-8 per athlete, years 2013-2015). Equations for the individualization procedure were adapted from previous material to allow for discrimination of 2 physiological states (recovered vs nonrecovered). Evaluation of classificatory performance was carried out using data from 5 consecutive weekly microcycles in 14 elite junior swimmers and triathletes. Blood samples were collected every Monday (recovered) and Friday according to the repetitive weekly training schedule over 5 wk. On the group level, changes in muscle recovery could be confirmed by significant differences in urea and CK and validated questionnaires. Group-based reference ranges were derived from that same data set to avoid overestimating the potential benefit of individualization. RESULTS: For CK, error rates were significantly lower with individualized classification (P vs group-based: test-pass error rate P = .008; test-fail error rate P < .001). For urea, numerical improvements in error rates failed to reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized reference ranges seem to be a promising tool to improve accuracy of monitoring muscle recovery. Investigating application to a larger panel of indicators is warranted.
PURPOSE: Assessment of muscle recovery is essential for the daily fine-tuning of training load in competitive sports, but individual differences may limit the diagnostic accuracy of group-based reference ranges. This article reports an attempt to develop individualized reference ranges using a Bayesian approach comparable to that developed for the Athlete Biological Passport. METHODS:Urea and creatine kinase (CK) were selected as indicators of muscle recovery. For each parameter, prior distributions and repeated-measures SDs were characterized based on data of 883 squad athletes (1758 data points, 1-8 per athlete, years 2013-2015). Equations for the individualization procedure were adapted from previous material to allow for discrimination of 2 physiological states (recovered vs nonrecovered). Evaluation of classificatory performance was carried out using data from 5 consecutive weekly microcycles in 14 elite junior swimmers and triathletes. Blood samples were collected every Monday (recovered) and Friday according to the repetitive weekly training schedule over 5 wk. On the group level, changes in muscle recovery could be confirmed by significant differences in urea and CK and validated questionnaires. Group-based reference ranges were derived from that same data set to avoid overestimating the potential benefit of individualization. RESULTS: For CK, error rates were significantly lower with individualized classification (P vs group-based: test-pass error rate P = .008; test-fail error rate P < .001). For urea, numerical improvements in error rates failed to reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized reference ranges seem to be a promising tool to improve accuracy of monitoring muscle recovery. Investigating application to a larger panel of indicators is warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
distribution; individualization; reference range; sport
Authors: Christoph Schneider; Thimo Wiewelhove; Shaun J McLaren; Lucas Röleke; Hannes Käsbauer; Anne Hecksteden; Michael Kellmann; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sebastian Hacker; Thomas Reichel; Anne Hecksteden; Christopher Weyh; Kristina Gebhardt; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti; Michael Kellmann; Tim Meyer; Karsten Krüger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Christoph Schneider; Florian Hanakam; Thimo Wiewelhove; Alexander Döweling; Michael Kellmann; Tim Meyer; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 4.566