↓ Skip to main content

The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization
Published in
Sports Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0855-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron J. Cunanan, Brad H. DeWeese, John P. Wagle, Kevin M. Carroll, Robert Sausaman, W. Guy Hornsby, G. Gregory Haff, N. Travis Triplett, Kyle C. Pierce, Michael H. Stone

Abstract

Recent reviews have attempted to refute the efficacy of applying Selye's general adaptation syndrome (GAS) as a conceptual framework for the training process. Furthermore, the criticisms involved are regularly used as the basis for arguments against the periodization of training. However, these perspectives fail to consider the entirety of Selye's work, the evolution of his model, and the broad applications he proposed. While it is reasonable to critically evaluate any paradigm, critics of the GAS have yet to dismantle the link between stress and adaptation. Disturbance to the state of an organism is the driving force for biological adaptation, which is the central thesis of the GAS model and the primary basis for its application to the athlete's training process. Despite its imprecisions, the GAS has proven to be an instructive framework for understanding the mechanistic process of providing a training stimulus to induce specific adaptations that result in functional enhancements. Pioneers of modern periodization have used the GAS as a framework for the management of stress and fatigue to direct adaptation during sports training. Updates to the periodization concept have retained its founding constructs while explicitly calling for scientifically based, evidence-driven practice suited to the individual. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide greater clarity on how the GAS serves as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize the periodization of training.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 198 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 22%
Student > Bachelor 39 21%
Unspecified 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 107 57%
Unspecified 35 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 14 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 144. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2019.
All research outputs
#97,540
of 13,259,868 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#102
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,328
of 383,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#6
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,259,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.