Physiological Resilience: What Is It and How Might It Be Trained?
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)
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.
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
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
regraded 2026-09-27 from A: narrative perspective from the leading group, no systematic method, no meta-analysis