REF-141 · Jones & Kirby, 2025 · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. · Paper

Physiological Resilience: What Is It and How Might It Be Trained?

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Central Concept: a 4th endurance factor

Classical model: performance = f(VO2max, economy/efficiency, metabolic thresholds). Jones & Kirby add physiological resilience (durability): the classical determinants are prone to deterioration during prolonged endurance exercise, often with appreciable inter-individual variability. Resilience is the capacity to preserve them as fatigue develops.

Key Findings (abstract)

VO2max, efficiency/economy and metabolic thresholds deteriorate during prolonged exercise, with large differences between athletes.
The physiological underpinnings of resilience are elusive; sports physiologists are still developing practical testing protocols that reflect an athlete's resilience.
Open questions: what makes some athletes more resilient than their peers, and whether resilience can be improved and, if so, through which training programs or individual sessions.
Data are scant. The available evidence suggests that resilience may be promoted by:

1. Training consistency and the accumulation of relatively large training volumes over the longer term (several years).

2. Regular prolonged exercise sessions, above all ones that contain high-intensity efforts at or above race pace, or that ramp the intensity up progressively as fatigue builds.

3. Resistance training, especially heavy strength and plyometric training.

The authors argue that training for resilience, alongside the established determinants, will likely matter in the long-term development of endurance athletes.

Mechanisms of resilience loss

Not quantified in the abstract. Inference, consistent with the base's other entries: glycogen depletion with recruitment of less efficient fibres, VO2 drift at constant power, neuromuscular fatigue and thermal strain are the usual candidates (REF-143 for threshold drift, REF-145 for critical power after prolonged work, REF-144 for the loss of top-end power after 4 h despite 100 g/h).

How to train resilience (abstract)

1. Consistency and volume over years — the accumulation of large volumes over several years, not a single block.

2. Prolonged sessions with intensity inside them — long sessions that include race-pace-or-above bouts, or that build intensity progressively while fatigue develops.

3. Heavy strength and plyometric training — seems to benefit resilience.

Practical Application

Perspective paper, data described as scant: VO2max, economy and thresholds deteriorate during prolonged exercise with large between-athlete variability; the available evidence suggests resilience is promoted by years of consistent, high-volume training, by regular prolonged sessions that include race-pace-or-harder bouts or a progressive intensity rise under fatigue, and by heavy strength and plyometric training. In long events the start-line numbers are what the athlete has to defend, not what they get to use for the whole distance.
Duration specificity: long sessions matched to the event are the specific stimulus — and the paper's point is that the intensity inside them matters: finish long rides with race-pace efforts or a progressive build, not only steady Z1.
Strength protects the fatigued state: heavy strength and plyometric work belong in the plan of an athlete whose event is long, not only a sprinter's.
Consistency over years beats any single block — durability is a long-term development trait.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: pace the early hours of a long event below threshold and plan the late climbs against a reduced ceiling, since critical power falls after prolonged work (REF-145); fuel steadily to slow glycogen depletion (REF-543 for intake targets).
There is no gold-standard resilience test yet (abstract), so any durability number is a within-athlete comparison over time, never a between-athlete one.

Limitations

Perspective paper — no new experimental data; the authors themselves call the evidence scant. No gold-standard test of resilience exists. Inter-individual variability is large but not quantified in the abstract. Training recommendations are suggestions, not tested prescriptions.

How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: narrative perspective from the leading group, no systematic method, no meta-analysis

Content correction 2026-09-27
Level A -> B+: narrative perspective, no systematic method.
Sport "strength" -> general (the paper is about prolonged endurance exercise; strength is one recommended training input).
"CP −10% average, <1% to −32%", "economy +2-5%", "economy degraded 2.1% vs 4.7% after strength (REF-078)", "3-5h", "4-5h", "<85% FTP", "90-120 g CHO/h" -> none are in the abstract; REF-078 reports +4.7% work efficiency, not a 2.1%/4.7% degradation comparison. All deleted; pacing/fuelling kept only as the base's own practice with pointers.
"Even in untrained: Z1 volume reduces drifts", "low-volume HIT reduces drift" -> not in the abstract; replaced by the abstract's three training suggestions (consistency/volume over years, prolonged sessions with race-pace or progressive intensity, heavy strength and plyometrics).
Descriptions of REF-144 repeated its pre-2026-09-26 version (muscle biopsies, glycogen/fibre-type depletion, fat oxidation doubling, power "preserved/maintained" at 100 g/h). The corrected entry took no biopsies and reports 6-min power FALLING ~10% after 4 h at 100 g/h; descriptions updated.
Full text (checked 2026-10-12)
In the Clark et al. studies, CP from a 3‐min all‐out test fell by approximately 10% at the group mean level after 2 h of heavy‐intensity exercise; the individual decline ranged from as little as 1% to as much as 33% and did not correlate with baseline V̇O2max or fresh CP (full text).
The fall in CP over 2 h of heavy‐intensity cycling tended to accelerate markedly beyond approximately 80 min, and 60 g/h of carbohydrate during the 2 h gave a smaller fall in CP than placebo (full text).
Approximately 30% of the increase in V̇O2 over 2 h of heavy exercise was attributed to a shift in substrate use, with RER falling from approximately 0.91 to 0.84 (data from 36 participants) (full text).
Heavy strength training twice per week for 12 weeks in elite cyclists improved a 5 min time trial done straight after 3 h of moderate‐intensity exercise, compared with endurance-only controls (Ronnestad et al.) (full text).
Runners matched for V̇O2max and 10 km performance who regularly did long runs of more than 90 min had a smaller rise in O2 cost over a 90 min run at ~80% V̇O2max (3.1 vs. 6.0%) (Zanini et al.) (full text).
Fresh, professional cyclists and elite juniors did almost the same work in 5 and 20 min trials, but after rides of up to 50 kJ/kg the juniors' performance fell steeply while the professionals' barely changed (Gallo et al.) (full text).
Adding thrice‐weekly HIIT sessions at unchanged total volume lowered V̇O2 and blood lactate during a 2 h moderate‐intensity ride and improved time trial performance straight after it (full text).
On average, males slowed more than females in the second half of a marathon (15.6% vs. 11.7%) (full text).