Overtraining syndrome in bodybuilding and the difficulty of searching for informative biomarkers for disadaptation diagnostics

• Published in: Фізична реабілітація та рекреаційно-оздоровчі технології Vol. 10; no. 2; pp. 108 - 119
• Main Authors: Koval, Vadym, Tsos, Anatolii, Olkhovyi, Oleh, Drobot, Kateryna, Chernozub, Andrii, Potop, Vladimir
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kharkiv State Academy of Physical Culture 30.04.2025
• Subjects: biochemical blood parameters; bodybuilding; disadaptation; energy supply; load; overtraining syndrome
• ISSN: 2522-1906; 2522-1914
• DOI: 10.15391/prrht.2025-10(2).06

Purpose. To study the characteristic features of overtraining syndrome (OTS) in bodybuilding in athletes with different resistance levels and to identify informative blood biomarkers to diagnose disadaptation. Material & Methods. 90 people aged 22±1.3 years, with experience in strength training of 3.2±0.5 years, were examined. 3 groups (30 people each) were created. Group A – bodybuilders who, according to the medical examination results, had no contraindications (HBM). Group B – bodybuilders with symptoms of functional exhaustion (BFE). Group C – healthy men engaged in power fitness (HMF). By analyzing biochemical blood markers (CPK, LDH, cortisol, and testosterone), the characteristics of adaptive and compensatory responses to test exertions were identified (Ra=0.64 and Ra=0.74). Control was carried out at the beginning of the study and after 14 days of high-intensity strength training (HIRT). Results. The study showed that the baseline levels of the monitored biochemical blood parameters in HBM, BFE, and HMF participants were within the normal reference range. Despite the growth of the baseline level of CPK, LDH, and cortisol in the blood in bodybuilders of the HBM and BFE groups after two weeks of using HIRT, the values remained within the reference range. The determination of functional overreaching (FOR) in the HBM and HMF groups was made possible through the analysis of results showing a 50-53% increase in CPK and a 23-26% rise in cortisol levels in response to high-intensity loads (Ra=0.74). Based on the analysis of changes in LDH and cortisol levels in the blood in response to strength loads, it was possible to detect non-functional overreaching (NFOR) in BFE, HBM, and HMF groups. In individuals diagnosed with NFOR, even in response to loads under conditions of the creatine phosphokinase energy supply mechanism, there is a significant increase in LDH (30–47%) and cortisol (75–107%). In response to test loads, regardless of their intensity or type of anaerobic energy supply, there was a simultaneous increase in CPK (143-173%), LDH (66–92%), and a decrease in cortisol (46–54%) in BFI individuals suspected of having OTS. Conclusions. The proposed mechanism for identifying FOR, NFOR, and OTS during bodybuilding training, based on evaluating the nature of changes in the body’s adaptive-compensatory responses to a stress stimulus, is a tool for monitoring disadaptation. The results indicate that, for diagnosing OTS in HBM, BFE, and HMF athletes, the baseline levels of CPK, LDH, cortisol, and testosterone in the blood are not informative biomarkers. Using test loads (Ra=0.64 and Ra=0.74) as stress stimuli for the HBM, BFE, and HMF groups allows for identifying short-term adaptation or compensatory response manifestations based on the acute response of blood biomarkers.