Although its true function remains unclear, sleep is considered critical to human physiological and cognitive function. Equally, since sleep loss is a common occurrence prior to competition in athletes, this could significantly impact upon their athletic performance. Much of the previous research has reported that exercise performance is negatively affected following sleep loss; however, conflicting findings mean that the extent, influence, and mechanisms of sleep loss affecting exercise performance remain uncertain. For instance, research indicates some maximal physical efforts and gross motor performances can be maintained. In comparison, the few published studies investigating the effect of sleep loss on performance in athletes report a reduction in sport-specific performance. The effects of sleep loss on physiological responses to exercise also remain equivocal; however, it appears a reduction in sleep quality and quantity could result in an autonomic nervous system imbalance, simulating symptoms of the overtraining syndrome. Additionally, increases in pro-inflammatory cytokines following sleep loss could promote immune system dysfunction. Of further concern, numerous studies investigating the effects of sleep loss on cognitive function report slower and less accurate cognitive performance. Based on this context, this review aims to evaluate the importance and prevalence of sleep in athletes and summarises the effects of sleep loss (restriction and deprivation) on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to exercise. Given the equivocal understanding of sleep and athletic performance outcomes, further research and consideration is required to obtain a greater knowledge of the interaction between sleep and performance.

Sleep and athletic performance: the effects of sleep loss on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to exercise.

Sleep and exercise: a reciprocal issue?

Sleep has numerous important physiological and cognitive functions that may be particularly important to elite athletes. Recent evidence, as well as anecdotal information, suggests that athletes may experience a reduced quality and/or quantity of sleep. Sleep deprivation can have significant effects on athletic performance, especially submaximal, prolonged exercise. Compromised sleep may also influence learning, memory, cognition, pain perception, immunity and inflammation. Furthermore, changes in glucose metabolism and neuroendocrine function as a result of chronic, partial sleep deprivation may result in alterations in carbohydrate metabolism, appetite, food intake and protein synthesis. These factors can ultimately have a negative influence on an athlete’s nutritional, metabolic and endocrine status and hence potentially reduce athletic performance. Research has identified a number of neurotransmitters associated with the sleep–wake cycle. These include serotonin, gamma-aminobutyric acid, orexin, melanin-concentrating hormone, cholinergic, galanin, noradrenaline, and histamine. Therefore, nutritional interventions that may act on these neurotransmitters in the brain may also influence sleep. Carbohydrate, tryptophan, valerian, melatonin and other nutritional interventions have been investigated as possible sleep inducers and represent promising potential interventions. In this review, the factors influencing sleep quality and quantity in athletic populations are examined and the potential impact of nutritional interventions is considered. While there is some research investigating the effects of nutritional interventions on sleep, future research may highlight the importance of nutritional and dietary interventions to enhance sleep.

/pdf/sleep-in-elite-athletes-and-nutritional-interventions-to-3mddqtxhst.pdf

Sleep in elite athletes and nutritional interventions to enhance sleep.

The response to an exercise intervention is often described in general terms, with the assumption that the group average represents a typical response for most individuals. In reality, however, it is more common for individuals to show a wide range of responses to an intervention rather than a similar response. This phenomenon of ‘high responders’ and ‘low responders’ following a standardized training intervention may provide helpful insights into mechanisms of training adaptation and methods of training prescription. Therefore, the aim of this review was to discuss factors associated with inter-individual variation in response to standardized, endurance-type training. It is well-known that genetic influences make an important contribution to individual variation in certain training responses. The association between genotype and training response has often been supported using heritability estimates; however, recent studies have been able to link variation in some training responses to specific single nucleotide polymorphisms. It would appear that hereditary influences are often expressed through hereditary influences on the pre-training phenotype, with some parameters showing a hereditary influence in the pre-training phenotype but not in the subsequent training response. In most cases, the pre-training phenotype appears to predict only a small amount of variation in the subsequent training response of that phenotype. However, the relationship between pre-training autonomic activity and subsequent maximal oxygen uptake response appears to show relatively stronger predictive potential. Individual variation in response to standardized training that cannot be explained by genetic influences may be related to the characteristics of the training program or lifestyle factors. Although standardized programs usually involve training prescribed by relative intensity and duration, some methods of relative exercise intensity prescription may be more successful in creating an equivalent homeostatic stress between individuals than other methods. Individual variation in the homeostatic stress associated with each training session would result in individuals experiencing a different exercise ‘stimulus’ and contribute to individual variation in the adaptive responses incurred over the course of the training program. Furthermore, recovery between the sessions of a standardized training program may vary amongst individuals due to factors such as training status, sleep, psychological stress, and habitual physical activity. If there is an imbalance between overall stress and recovery, some individuals may develop fatigue and even maladaptation, contributing to variation in pre–post training responses. There is some evidence that training response can be modulated by the timing and composition of dietary intake, and hence nutritional factors could also potentially contribute to individual variation in training responses. Finally, a certain amount of individual variation in responses may also be attributed to measurement error, a factor that should be accounted for wherever possible in future studies. In conclusion, there are several factors that could contribute to individual variation in response to standardized training. However, more studies are required to help clarify and quantify the role of these factors. Future studies addressing such topics may aid in the early prediction of high or low training responses and provide further insight into the mechanisms of training adaptation.

High responders and low responders: factors associated with individual variation in response to standardized training.

Sleep is an essential component for athlete recovery due to its physiological and psychological restorative effects, yet few studies have explored the habitual sleep/wake behaviour of elite athletes. The aims of the present study were to investigate the habitual sleep/wake behaviour of elite athletes, and to compare the differences in sleep between athletes from individual and team sports. A total of 124 (104 male, 20 female) elite athletes (mean ± s: age 22.2 ± 3.0 years) from five individual sports and four team sports participated in this study. Participants' sleep/wake behaviour was assessed using self-report sleep diaries and wrist activity monitors for a minimum of seven nights (range 7-28 nights) during a typical training phase. Mixed-effects analyses of variances were conducted to compare the differences in the sleep/wake behaviour of athletes from two sport types (i.e. individual and team). Overall, this sample of athletes went to bed at 22:59 ± 1.3, woke up at 07:15 ± 1.2 and obtained 6.8 ± 1.1 h of sleep per night. Athletes from individual sports went to bed earlier, woke up earlier and obtained less sleep (individual vs team; 6.5 vs 7.0 h) than athletes from team sports. These data indicate that athletes obtain well below the recommended 8 h of sleep per night, with shorter sleep durations existing among athletes from individual sports.

Sleep/wake behaviours of elite athletes from individual and team sports

http://www.luzimarteixeira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/sleep-and-muscle-recovery-endocrinological-and-molecular-basis-for-a-new-and-promissing-hypothesis.pdf

M. Mônico Neto

Papers

Sleep and muscle recovery: endocrinological and molecular basis for a new and promising hypothesis.

161 profile level of physical activity and quality of sleep in patients with fibromyalgia

Degenerative changes induced by paradoxical sleep deprivation in rat sublingual glands.