REF-207 · Roete et al., 2021 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. · Paper · PubMed
A Systematic Review on Markers of Functional Overreaching in Endurance Athletes
Key Findings
Brief systematic review (PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO): 380 articles screened, 12 included, on noninvasive markers that reflect a state of functional overreaching in trained to professional endurance athletes
Good consensus across the papers on which noninvasive parameters reflect FOR:
Able to reflect FOR: changes in power output, heart rate (submaximal, maximal and HR recovery), rating of perceived exertion, and DALDA and/or POMS scores
Not able to reflect FOR: changes in maximal oxygen uptake and heart-rate-variability parameters
Maximal performance test in FOR: lower peak power output and a lower maximum heart rate
Time trials in FOR: lower mean power output and a lower heart rate
Standardized submaximal test in FOR: higher power at a fixed heart rate (or lower HR at a fixed intensity), higher RPE, and a faster HR recovery
DALDA vs POMS: both reflected FOR, but POMS could not separate FOR from acute fatigue, which makes it unsuitable for monitoring FOR accurately
Practical Application
Systematic review of 12 studies in trained-to-professional endurance athletes: functional overreaching shows up as lower power and lower heart rate in maximal tests and time trials, and in a standardized submaximal test as a lower HR at a fixed power (or more power at a fixed HR) with a higher RPE and a faster HR recovery — while HRV and VO2max changes did not reflect it.Watch power-to-HR-to-RPE in a repeatable submaximal effort, not HRV, when you want to know whether a hard block has tipped into overreaching.
The "paradox" is the signature: in FOR the heart rate is lower for the same work and recovers faster, yet the effort feels harder and maximal power is down. A lower HR here is not fitness; read it together with RPE and power.
Use the DALDA (life-demands) questionnaire rather than POMS for this purpose: the review found POMS could not tell FOR from ordinary acute fatigue.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a weekly standardized submaximal effort (same course or trainer, fixed power for several minutes, 1-min passive recovery) with HR, RPE and HR recovery logged, plus a daily wellness item; act when several of these move in the FOR direction together for several days, and treat a lone HRV dip as noise for this question.
Limitations
Systematic review without pooling; the abstract gives no effect sizes, thresholds or sensitivity/specificity figures
12 included papers; FOR was induced by short overload blocks in research settings
Endurance athletes only (trained to professional); transfer to team or strength sports not covered
Marker directions describe group responses; individual baselines are still required to use them
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"HRV reduction 15-25% indicates FOR", "HRV sensitivity 85-90% at >15% reduction", "2-3 markers combined 90%+ detection" -> deleted. The abstract says HR-variability parameters were NOT able to reflect functional overreaching.
"Time-to-exhaustion tests most sensitive (5-10% reduction)", "salivary cortisol / T:C / IgA show promise" -> deleted; not in the abstract, which lists power output, HR (sub/maximal, recovery), RPE, DALDA and POMS as the markers that reflect FOR.
"Subjective readiness (DALDA, POMS) surprisingly reliable" -> DALDA and POMS both reflected FOR, but POMS could not separate FOR from acute fatigue.
Week-by-week monitoring protocol with numeric triggers -> replaced by a short base-practice line; Tier "mixed" -> Tier 2-4 per the abstract's "trained to professional endurance athletes".
Cross-references to duplicate stubs repointed to their canonical entries (REF-132->REF-361); the stubs were emptied on 2026-09-27.