The Training Adaptability Prediction Problem Explained: Part 2

This post continues to explore Training Adaptation Predictability Problem (TAPP) and how we can influence the cognitive and emotional dimensions of adaptation through an intentional approach to communication and the training environment.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored the Training Adaptation Predictability Problem (TAPP), which describes the challenge of reliably forecasting how an athlete will respond to a given training stimulus. While a holistic athlete-monitoring system can provide insight into each individual’s load–response relationship, we also need a broader perspective on the training environment.

In Part 2, I examine how practitioners can intentionally influence the athlete’s training experience to promote a positive response to training and, in turn, adaptation and performance.

Revisiting the Training Adaptability Prediction Problem

Training theory and periodisation frameworks are founded on the premise that a carefully prescribed balance of stress and recovery produces predictable adaptations. However, empirical evidence demonstrates that athletes do not respond uniformly to training.

Research across diverse exercise modalities, including resistance training (Hubal et al, 2005), endurance and sprint interval training (Bonafiglia et al., 2016), high-intensity interval training (Astorino et al, 2014), and ergogenic aids (Didriksen et al, 2013), consistently reveals substantial variability between individuals.

Moreover, within the same individual, responses may vary over time depending on psycho-emotional and environmental context (as explored in Part 1). These findings challenge the traditional interpretation of Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome as a universal and repeatable trajectory.

Recognising the TAPP refocuses the objectives of athlete monitoring and programme design. Mechanical load alone cannot explain adaptation. Instead, training outcomes emerge from the complex integration of physical, psychological, and environmental factors that differ both between and within individuals.

In Part 1, I  discussed how a holistic monitoring framework that integrates objective and subjective indicators can illuminate individual training responses. Yet, while improved load monitoring is essential, it does not in itself resolve the TAPP. To manage the inherent unpredictability of adaptation, practitioners should also consider the cognitive and emotional dimensions of training, creating environments that optimise both physiological and psychological readiness for adaptation.

The Influence of Psycho-Emotional Factors

The TAPP highlights that an athlete’s adaptive capacity is influenced by more than physical training load alone. Psychological and emotional factors can profoundly modulate physiological responses and recovery processes.

Perceived stress, for example, has been shown to negatively influence both acute and chronic adaptations to resistance training (Bartholomew et al., 2008; Stults-Kolehmainen and Bartholomew, 2012; Stults-Kolehmainen et al., 2014). Conversely, psychosocial interventions and supportive environments can enhance adaptive outcomes by reframing stress as a challenge rather than a threat.

The body’s response to stress is not solely determined by external load but also by how the mind perceives and interprets that load. Emotional and cognitive state can transform a potentially threatening stressor into an adaptive challenge, enhancing resilience and performance. In contrast, chronic psychological stress can blunt physiological responses and impair recovery. This interconnection between psychological and physical stressors reinforces the need for an integrated understanding of adaptation.

📘 Want to go deeper? The Fundamentals of Load Monitoring course—developed in collaboration with Sports Horizon—covers training load theory, applied monitoring, and data visualisation in Microsoft Power BI. Check it out here.

Within athlete-monitoring systems, there may be value in expanding the inclusion of psychological measures beyond conventional wellness questionnaires. While it is essential to respect the privacy and sensitivity of psychological information, incorporating validated measures of stress, mood, or coping traits may provide deeper insight into individual load capacity.

Evidence links injury risk with the following psychological factors and characteristics:

• daily hassles and perceived stressors (Ivarsson et al., 2013)

• self-blame (Timpka et al., 2015)

• perfectionistic tendencies (Madigan et al., 2017)

• a history of major stressors (Ivarsson et al., 2017)

• anxiety (Timpka et al., 2016)

Although sports scientists may not directly conduct these assessments, integrating such information within a holistic monitoring framework can help contextualise training responses and guide more individualised decision-making. This approach at least acknowledges that effective load management depends on both physical and psychological readiness for adaptation.

Shaping Athlete Beliefs and Expectations

Training stress is not purely a physical phenomenon. In his essay on stress, John Kiely highlighted that an individual’s emotional and cognitive backdrop influences the training-stress response. While capturing training responses within a holistic athlete-monitoring system provides insight into this status, practitioners should also consider how to intentionally promote a positive cognitive and emotional experience for athletes.

One fascinating area concerns beliefs and expectations. Evidence suggests that the body’s physiological responses are influenced by what the mind believes it is doing or consuming rather than by the objective reality. This has been demonstrated in studies exploring the effects of belief on physical outcomes, hormonal responses, and glucose metabolism as discussed previously.

In essence, an individual’s mindset can have a profound effect on physiology and may therefore mediate training outcomes. Belief is a strong medicine!

Beliefs in sport are often associated with placebo effects. Placebo responses from inert treatments on sports performance are well documented (Beedie et al., 2006; McClung and Collins, 2007; Beedie and Foad, 2012). Belief in a novel or exciting “performance-enhancing intervention” may improve outcomes regardless of real treatment effects (Halson and Martin, 2013).

Balancing scientific evidence with belief effects can be challenging in applied environments. How should practitioners handle an intervention that an athlete strongly believes in but which has limited scientific support? Can this belief be harnessed both effectively and ethically?

Dr David Martin proposed the Three Ts to help navigate this issue:

• Truth: understand the evidence supporting an intervention and convey conviction.

• Trust: build trusting relationships and understand athlete beliefs.

• Timing: introduce new interventions during lower-stakes phases of the season.

Belief in a novel or exciting “performance-enhancing intervention” may improve outcomes regardless of real treatment effects

We therefore, need to be intentional in how we communicate with athletes about interventions. The way information is presented may influence belief, expectation, and ultimately physiological response, as per the TAPP. While more research is needed, promoting beliefs in an intervention or even the programme as a whole may have tangible effects on adaptation and performance.

The Role of the Training Environment

The influence of belief in sport extends beyond pills and supplements. Davis and colleagues (2019) proposed that social interactions may trigger similar neurobiological pathways to those involved in placebo responses. Consequently, how we design and interact within the training environment may be another factor within the TAPP and directly shape an individual’s emotional and cognitive backdrop.

A common responsibility of sports-science practitioners is to provide feedback to athletes, which may, in turn, influence their mindset and mediate training adaptation. Receiving feedback can be a source of stress, yet the absence of feedback is also perceived as stressful (Noblet and Gifford, 2001). This highlights the importance of being intentional with feedback, carefully considering who delivers it, when, how, how much, and for what purpose.

Video interventions, another common tool in sport, can also influence acute performance by altering hormonal and emotional states. Christian Cook and Blair Crewther demonstrated that pre-workout motivational videos and positive coach feedback can enhance hormonal concentrations and subsequent performance without inducing metabolic stress. Notably, the content theme matters: positive emotional footage elicits the greatest response (Cook and Crewther, 2012).

While video is firmly embedded in most training environments, it is worth reflecting on whether its use is truly strategic. The aims, content, and timing of video interventions should be aligned with the intended psychological and physiological outcomes.

Feedback and video are two specific examples that illustrate the importance of intentional design. However, the broader social environment also matters. Poor coach–athlete relationships are recognised sources of stress and have been associated with burnout, fatigue (Isoard-Gauther, 2016), and an increased risk of chronic injury (Pensgaard et al., 2018). Therefore, both interpersonal relationships and the wider training environment should be structured to moderate rather than amplify background stressors.

Practitioners are not merely data collectors or load managers. They are also designers of environments, educators, communicators, and cultural influencers. Training does not occur in isolation: the context and interactions surrounding it significantly shape an athlete’s response.

Practical Applications: Managing the TAPP

The TAPP highlights that there is no reliable way to predict how any given individual will respond to planned training stimuli. However, practitioners can acknowledge, account for, and influence this variability within their monitoring systems and daily processes.

Practical considerations include:

• Capture individual responses: Track individual response measures alongside training load to illuminate dose–response relationships.

• Incorporate subjective measures: Embrace measures such as RPE and wellness questionnaires, which often better reflect an individual’s experience of training.

• Combine training load and response: Integrate internal and external load metrics with physical and psychological response measures for a comprehensive view.

• Promote beliefs and expectations: Recognise that beliefs modulate physiological responses and consider how communication and behaviour influence athlete mindset.

• Use feedback and video wisely: Provide feedback and visual interventions in ways that promote confidence and motivation rather than stress or doubt.

• Foster supportive environments: Build trusting relationships, encourage open communication, and create forums for athletes to share perspectives that can inform training decisions.

With thanks to John Kiely, whose thought-provoking discussions and comments shaped this philosophy.

FAQs on the Training Adaptation Predictability Problem

What is the Training Adaptation Predictability Problem (TAPP)?

The TAPP refers to the challenge of reliably predicting how individuals will respond to planned training stimuli. Variability exists both between athletes and within the same athlete over time due to a combination of physical, psychological, and environmental factors.

How do psycho-emotional factors influence training adaptation?

Psychological and emotional stress can alter how the body responds to training. High perceived stress can blunt physiological adaptations and slow recovery, while positive emotional states and supportive environments can enhance them. These factors interact with physical load, meaning that effective training management must account for both physiological and psychological readiness.

Can psychological measures be integrated into athlete monitoring systems?

Yes. Although psychological assessments are sensitive and must be handled carefully, incorporating validated measures of stress, mood, or coping traits can provide deeper insight into an athlete’s adaptive capacity. This information, when viewed alongside physical load and response data, helps contextualise individual variability in training outcomes.

What role do beliefs and expectations play in performance?

Belief and expectation can directly influence physiological responses. Placebo effects demonstrate that perceived benefit can enhance performance, even in the absence of a true physiological mechanism. Practitioners should therefore communicate interventions with clarity and conviction, fostering positive but ethical belief systems that enhance the athlete’s response to training.

How can feedback and video interventions support adaptation?

Feedback and visual content can shape athletes’ mindsets and hormonal responses. Positive and timely feedback enhances motivation and performance, whereas negative or inconsistent communication can increase stress. Video interventions, when strategically selected and delivered, can enhance acute performance and create a more positive training climate.

What is the practitioner’s role in managing the TAPP?

Practitioners play a key role as designers of environments and communicators of belief. Beyond data analysis, their influence extends to shaping interactions, trust, and emotional climate. By integrating physical and psychological monitoring, fostering supportive relationships, and being intentional in feedback and communication, practitioners can better manage the inherent unpredictability of adaptation.