# A Comparison of Training, Injury, Illness, Sleep, Wellbeing and Stress Between Developing Elite and Recreational Athletes

## TL;DR

Developing elite athletes train more but report better health and wellbeing than recreational athletes, suggesting talent programs may not harm health.

## Contribution

This study compares health and wellbeing outcomes between developing elite and recreational athletes using a 14-week training monitoring system.

## Key findings

- Developing elite athletes completed more training without health issues and reported better sleep and wellbeing.
- Despite higher training loads, developing elite athletes had fewer injury-related days lost compared to recreational athletes.
- There was no difference in illness prevalence or days lost due to illness between the two groups.

## Abstract

The impact of National Governing Body talent development programmes on injury, illness, sleep, wellbeing and stress of developing elite athletes (DEA) is poorly understood. Therefore, we examined differences between age‐matched DEA (n = 42, 25 females; Mage = 21.0; SD = 2.5) and recreationally active athletes (RAA, n = 79, 56 females; Mage = 21.2; SD = 2.8) on these variables over 14 weeks of training using a weekly online monitoring tool. Compared to RAA, DEA completed a greater proportion of planned training and competition without health problems or reducing training volume. Despite training more hours (DEA M = 17.1; SD = 5.1, RAA M = 6.0; SD = 3.2, p < 0.001), DEA reported similar recovery, higher readiness to train, more sleep, better sleep quality, higher wellbeing (DEA M = 68%; SD = 15, RAA M = 56% SD = 16, p < 0.001), lower stress and fewer injuries, resulting in fewer days lost to injuries than RAA (DEA M = 0.4; SD = 1.5, RAA M = 2.5 SD = 6.7, p = 0.01). There was no difference between DEA and RAA in the prevalence of illness or days lost due to illness. In conclusion, despite a greater training and competition load, DEA reported better health and wellbeing than RAA, suggesting the increased demands of National Governing Body talent development programmes may not adversely affect health. These findings also highlight the benefits and importance of talent development systems undertaking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to athlete monitoring.

Little is known about the impact of training and competition demands on developing elite athletes (DEA; those athletes training and competing as part of National Governing Body talent development programs).DEA train and compete more than age‐matched recreationally active athletes but report better sleep, higher wellbeing, lower stress and fewer injuries, resulting in fewer training and competition days lost to injuries.These study findings highlight the benefits of comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches to athlete monitoring, particularly in the DEA population.

Little is known about the impact of training and competition demands on developing elite athletes (DEA; those athletes training and competing as part of National Governing Body talent development programs).

DEA train and compete more than age‐matched recreationally active athletes but report better sleep, higher wellbeing, lower stress and fewer injuries, resulting in fewer training and competition days lost to injuries.

These study findings highlight the benefits of comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches to athlete monitoring, particularly in the DEA population.