Hey man, the debate is good - didn't mean to say you are "over thinking" it in an insulting manner. Just saying, you have a bunch of knowledge and it may be confusing things while I'm simple. Thanks for the offer to do a training routine, which I may take you up on because I like experimenting on myself and learning, and thanks for the texts.I don't mind debate, but to say that both Rodja and I are overthinking it because your opinion and dictionary definition differs from our evidence based stance is mind boggling. Puking is not over training. He simply isn't adapted to that workload.
There is absolutely a difference between over reaching and over training; in this case, I actually suggest doing more reading because you are arguing for things that have clear distinctions.
If you want to do more reading, I can provide you with the FTs for these studies:
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Citation/1991/02000/Overtraining__A_Review_of_the_Signs,_Symptoms_and.6.aspx
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/32/2/107.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-080#.VZ8NpBuqqko
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-585-34048-7_2#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200333050-00002#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-199112010-00004
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-199112010-00004#page-1
http://sph.sagepub.com/content/4/2/128.short
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/9/642.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/101/6/1664.short
There are different stages in the adaptive response. Over-training is at the very end of the scale being the absolute worst and taking the longest to come back from (several months as opposed to days). Before over training occurs you have over reaching which is a planned increase in intensity that results in plateau or regress followed by an increase in performance.
View attachment 121339
View attachment 121340
To show I am reading what you send (as I have time), please read the first paragraph of the first article you sent me. Pretty much says what I've been saying, all though it does preface it with "simplistically", which I understand.
"Overtraining is a complex topic because of the difficulty in adequately defining terms used to describe overtraining and the multiplicity of signs and symptoms that may be associated with overtraining. Simplistically, overtraining with respect to physical training may be defined as a plateauing and/or a decrease in performance that results from failure to tolerate or adapt to the training load. If the training load is increased for a few days and weeks, producing a decrease in performance, and subsequent rest or detraining brings performance to higher than previous levels, it has been termed over reaching or supercompensation training."
The second paragraph goes on to somewhat differentiate overtraining vs. chronic overtraining. You have gone on in your last post to show that it is more complex, and to also show there is a difference between overtraining vs. chronic overtraining - just calling it over reaching because that's the thing to do when it is used to a positive effect (although it is the same tool).
Obviously this can be made more complex, but my simple definition sufficient, whether I made it up or not.
Also, I never said puking is overtraining, I was making the distinction between volume and intensity and different adaptations.
Which all this gets back to what I've been saying for a while - I don't think the way I say things is carrying over to you effectively, because I think we're A LOT closer on things than you think, but I have slight twists, and you train athletes for more varied purposes (which requires a different set of skills), and I'm just a little more in a different direction than you. Like I said, I know I'm the minority.
My issue was, you keep saying that I am not defining overtraining or don't know what it is, but I did give you a definition, as I understand it. You said I was wrong and I just asked for YOUR definition, which you said you needed context for. Cool, I get that. Then someone else gives a definition from a dictionary and you say that is wrong too, so I asked for your definition again. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm sincerely interested in learning your definition. The articles you posted defined it, but they define it along the terms I and Tufts were saying. And I suspect this is probably along the same lines as what you really believe, because I know you know this stuff cold. If you have a better definition, I want to learn.
Anyway man, I'm hesitant to continue this for a few reasons:
1. The biggest reason is I don't wanna piss you or Rodja off, I respect you both and it's cool. I think we're way closer than you realize, with twists.
2. All this typing takes too much time and people don't want to read all that I have to say anyway. I'm long winded and I get that too.
Having said that, your last post is really great and I'm gonna read up on that shizzle and may take you up on the full texts. Thanks man.