G Model
JSAMS-1491; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams
Review
The General Adaptation Syndrome: Potential misapplications to
resistance exercise
Samuel L. Buckner, J. Grant Mouser, Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Kevin T. Mattocks,
Jeremy P. Loenneke ∗
Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, United
States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 October 2016
Received in revised form 6 February 2017
Accepted 8 February 2017
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Stress
Adaptation energy
Periodization
Strength and conditioning
Skeletal muscle
Exercise physiology
a b s t r a c t
Within the resistance training literature, one of the most commonly cited tenets with respect to exercise
programming is the “General Adaptation Syndrome” (GAS). The GAS is cited as a central theory behind
the periodization of resistance exercise. However, after examining the original stress research by Hans
Selye, the applications of GAS to resistance exercise may not be appropriate.
Objectives: To examine the original work of Hans Selye, as well as the original papers through which the
GAS was established as a central theory for periodized resistance exercise.
Methods: We conducted a review of Selye’s work on the GAS, as well as the foundational papers through
which this concept was applied to resistance exercise.
Results/conclusions: The work of Hans Selye focused on the universal physiological stress responses noted
upon exposure to toxic levels of a variety of pharmacological agents and stimuli. The extrapolations that
have been made to resistance exercise appear loosely based on this concept and may not be an appropriate
basis for application of the GAS to resistance exercise.
© 2017 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Within the resistance training literature, one of the most commonly cited tenets with respect to exercise programming is the
“General Adaptation Syndrome” (GAS).1–5 This concept was first
introduced in the 1930s by Hans Selye, and later adapted for
exercise programming by Garhammer6 and Wilt7 in separate publications. In 1961, Forbes Carlile published a perspective proposing
the acceptance of the GAS as a basic philosophical guide to
coaching.8 However, this concept did not appear to become widely
accepted (regarding its applications for resistance exercise) until
its incorporation and discussion in a “theoretical model of strength
training” outlined by Stone et al.9 in 1982. Within this model, it
is suggested that the GAS applied to resistance exercise provides
us with three phases of adaptation: Alarm, Resistance and Overtraining. As a result, periodization was developed to maximize
adaptation while avoiding overtraining.6 This concept (GAS) has
since become very well accepted within the resistance training literature, cited in many papers1–5,10 as well as text books11 as an
underlying theory behind the development of periodization. In fact
the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) cites the work of
Hans Selye as the central theory behind periodization,12 suggesting that the application of GAS through periodized programming
can optimize performance and recovery. Our research group has
recently critically evaluated the merit of periodization regarding
its applications for muscle size and strength, concluding that there
is little evidence to suggest that a periodized resistance-training
program would augment changes beyond those observed in a nonperiodized program utilizing progressive overload.13 This naturally
led to the examination of GAS, with a specific focus on the original
stress research conducted by Hans Selye. Thus, the purpose of this
manuscript is to examine the original work of Hans Selye, as well
as the original papers through which the GAS was established as
a central theory for periodized resistance exercise. In doing so, we
wish to better understand the application or misapplication of the
GAS to resistance exercise.
2. The foundation of the General Adaptation Syndrome
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jploenne@olemiss.edu (J.P. Loenneke).
The General Adaptation Syndrome is a concept based on a
series of rodent studies testing the stress response to sub-lethal
doses of different drugs (e.g., morphine, atropine), and stimuli
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.02.012
1440-2440/© 2017 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Buckner SL, et al. The General Adaptation Syndrome: Potential misapplications to resistance exercise.
J Sci Med Sport (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.02.012
G Model
JSAMS-1491; No. of Pages 3
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Buckner et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
(e.g., temperature, exercise).14 Interestingly, Selye observed a similar phenomenon in all conditions: gastrointestinal ulceration,
thymico-lymphatic atrophy and adrenocortical ulceration. In fact,
the three stages of the GAS (alarm reaction, resistance and exhaustion) were developed based on observed tissue changes, mainly
thymus involution and adrenal hyperplasia, which occurred during persistent treatment with damaging agents. Selye also found
that pre-treatments (1/4 of the alarming/toxic dose) of different
agents (adrenaline, atropine, morphine, cold, exercise) administered, followed by a full alarming dose of the same stimuli appeared
to have a protective effect against a toxic dose of that agent. These
experiments showed that: (1) specificity of adaptation appears to
be important, as pre-treatment with a given stimulus was necessary to prevent thymus involution, and (2) an organism appears
to possess a finite amount of “adaptation energy”, as adaptation to
a certain stimulus appears to decrease resistance to other stimuli.
This concept of “adaptation energy” is best described by Selye, as he
explains: “. . .anything to which adaptation is possible eventually
results in exhaustion, that is, the loss of power to resist”.15 In 1936
Selye published a letter in Nature providing a summary of his experimental findings.16 Since then, this basic understanding has been
applied to a diverse range of fields. In the case of resistance training
exercise, its application has played a large role in the development
of periodization. Lee and Greenwood explain that: “Periodization
gained its popularity and application from a physiological theory
called the General Adaptation Syndrome or GAS.”10 However, it is
our opinion that the extrapolations that have been made to the
periodization (i.e., from toxic doses of drugs or exercise → normal
exercise/training in humans) of resistance exercise are not fully
supported by the original studies performed by Hans Selye and
require future research to better understand how his work on the
stress response to different stimuli might apply in a human training
model.
3. The application of GAS to sport and exercise
A review by Russell Viner discusses the “marginalization” of
Selye’s original findings, suggesting that his work has “become a
‘rallying cry’ for proponents of modern concepts of disease as a controllable interaction between humans and their environment”17 It
is our opinion that this may also be the case with its application
to sport and exercise. Fred Wilt was the first (to our knowledge)
to point out the importance of Selye’s work regarding the training
of athletes.7 In his short communication, Wilt cites a lecture given
by Forbes Carlile which discussed the importance of “adaptation
energy” when training athletes. This brief communication stresses
the idea that the “mixing of training routines with sufficient rest”
is important to produce “optimum amounts of specific adaptation
and adaptation energy.” This communication, however, does not
thoroughly discuss how the concept of adaptation energy would
specifically apply to training. One year later, Forbes Carlile published a perspective in the journal of Track Technique proposing
the acceptance of the GAS as a “scientific basic philosophy to guide
the coach”.8 However, no experimental work was specifically performed to test the hypothesis that the concept of GAS makes sense
in a human model, or that the application through periodization is
an appropriate use of this concept. This is important, as the original
model of adaptation energy discussed by Selye showed that a resistance (or adaptation) to one drug may limit the ability to adapt to
another (i.e., morphine, atropine).14 Meaning, if a rat is treated with
Drug A (building up a tolerance against a toxic dose), their ability to
withstand a toxic dose of Drug B is decreased. The extrapolations
made within the resistance training literature are somewhat vague,
but Selye’s original work seems to suggest that training for sport
may limit one’s ability to adapt to other stressors, such as resis-
tance exercise (and vice versa). Thus, this concept itself may be a
potential argument against strength training for sport.
4. The bridge to periodization
Periodization has been defined as a “training plan, whereby
peak performance is brought about through the potentiation of
biomotors and the management of fatigue and accommodation.”3
Garhammer was the first to apply the principles of GAS to
periodization.6 In his perspective, Garhammer suggested that the
total load of a training program should be divided up into unequal
portions (cycles), with the ultimate goal of avoiding exhaustion.
This suggestion, at a basic level, makes sense. Selye’s findings would
suggest that a single alarming dose of a stimulus can be toxic, if not
proceeded by a period of habituation using smaller doses. However,
it is important to note that the original rodent studies were examining the effects of toxic doses of both drugs and exercise as stressors.
Thus, it is difficult to determine how applicable these studies are for
training protocols that would typically be performed in humans. In
addition, when a rodent is exposed to a toxic dose of exercise, the
results are confounded due to the involuntary nature of forced exercise in the stress models. Moraska et al.18 highlights this important
distinction, explaining that forcing an animal to run (loss of control), with adverse motivation (foot shock, physical prodding, water
spray) may create a great psychological stress. Thus, it is difficult
to discern how much of the “stress” is caused from exercise and
how much is coming from other psychological factors. As such, we
question how these models may relate to regular, non-toxic, voluntary exercise in humans. If the stress models did apply in a human
model, it would support periods of rest to avoid exhaustion.
5. The potential misapplication of GAS
The original application of GAS to resistance exercise was to
avoid overtraining. The application of such principles seems sensible for athletes, where the manifestation of stress from everyday
life, stress from sport, and stress from supplemental exercise could
lead to overtraining. Thus, the original model of linear periodization may help account for sports training during the year, as it
decreases resistance training volume over time as the sports season progresses.9 This sensible concept may (on some levels) be a
loose application of the principles of GAS. However, periodization
has become the gold standard of programming, taking on an identity outside its original purpose of managing “adaptation energy”
and avoiding overtraining. Recent studies on periodization have
focused on searching for the “optimal” training method for muscle
size and strength,19,20 far removed from the original meaning of
periodization and the basis of Selye’s work. In fact, the majority of
current research examines adaptations in muscle size and strength
independent of sport practice.20–23 If the concept of GAS does in
fact exist in a human model with regular resistance exercise, we
believe it is unlikely that they are relevant when adaptation energy
is not spread over other strenuous activities (such as sport). This is
important as periodized resistance training should be training that
attempts to account for the totality of stress in an individual’s life. In
an experimental sense, in line with Selye’s work, the most effective
periodized program would produce the least amount of thymus
involution and adrenal hyperplasia. However, the focus of periodization has shifted towards the optimization of strength, muscle
size and performance.20,21 Interestingly, studies on periodization
do not discuss the principle of adaptation energy, which might suggest that hypertrophy training may hinder strength performance
(and vice versa). This may be a moot point, as it is presently unclear
if the original application of the GAS principles were ever appropriate; however, the current applications seen within the literature
Please cite this article in press as: Buckner SL, et al. The General Adaptation Syndrome: Potential misapplications to resistance exercise.
J Sci Med Sport (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.02.012
G Model
JSAMS-1491; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.L. Buckner et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
(large focus on “optimal” resistance exercise adaptation outside of
sport) largely fail to acknowledge this foundational concept while
continuing to cite the work on GAS as justification for this type of
training. Future research is essential to fully understand the concept
of GAS and how it may best (if at all) apply to resistance exercise
practice.
6. Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the early work of Hans Selye has applications
in the understanding of any stressful stimuli, including exercise. However, his original work seems rarely re-visited regarding
its analysis, interpretation and application to resistance exercise.
Notably, Selye’s work focused on the universal physiological stress
responses noted upon exposure to toxic levels of a variety of
pharmacological agents and stimuli, rather than normal levels of
exercise. Russell Viner discusses how the modern use of the concept proposed by Hans Selye “rejects the physiological postulates
which formed Selye’s original conceptualization of stress.”17 Consequently, additional research is necessary to elucidate the true
application of the GAS to resistance exercise training. It makes
sense that an athlete faced with demands of sport, society and
other factors in addition to resistance training may be faced with
an extraordinary level of stress. Thus, early models of linear periodization may help account for some of this (decreasing intensity
as sport demand increases).24 However, more recent models have
become far more complex and removed from this original thesis. In addition, it is unknown how a toxic dose of exercise would
compare to anything actually practiced in strength training. Incidentally, the principles of GAS may ultimately support the concept
of periodization as a guide to optimal programming for muscle size
and strength. However, the universal acceptance of the GAS is not
adequate without submitting it to the strenuous rigor of appropriate scientific research, particularly given the foundational role and
influence this theory has acquired within the strength and conditioning literature.
Acknowledgement
This study was not supported by any external funding.
3
2. Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C et al. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res
2009; 23(9):2437–2442.
3. Turner A. The science and practice of periodization: a brief review. Strength Cond
J 2011; 33(1):34–46.
4. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear
and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength.
J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29(4):1113–1125.
5. Lorenz D, Morrison S. Current concepts in periodization of strength and
conditioning for the sports physical therapist. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2015;
10(6):734–747.
6. Garhammer J. Periodization of strength training for athletes. Track Tech 1979;
73:2398–2399.
7. Wilt F. Stress and training. Track Tech 1960; 1(6):1–16.
8. Carlile F. The athlete and adaptation to stress. Track Tech 1961;(5):156–158.
9. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, Garhammer J et al. A theoretical model of strength training. Strength Cond J 1982; 4(4):36–39.
10. Brown LE, Greenwood M. Periodization essentials and innovations in resistance
training protocols. Strength Cond J 2005; 27(4):80–85.
11. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning, Human
Kinetics, 2008.
12. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2009; 41(3):687–708.
13. Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ, Buckner SL et al. Periodization: what is it good for? J
Trainol 2016; 5(1):6–12.
14. Selye H. Experimental evidence supporting the conception of adaptation energy.
Am J Physiol: Leg Content 1938; 123(3):758–765.
15. Selye H. The stress of life, Rev. ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
16. Selye H. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. 1936. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1998; 10(2):230–231.
17. Viner R. Putting stress in life Hans Selye and the making of stress theory. Soc
Stud Sci 1999; 29(3):391–410.
18. Moraska A, Deak T, Spencer RL et al. Treadmill running produces both positive
and negative physiological adaptations in Sprague-Dawley rats. Am J Physiol
Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000; 279(4):R1321–R1329.
19. Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB et al. A comparison of periodization models during
nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res
2007; 21(4):1245–1250.
20. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV et al. Modified daily undulating periodization
model produces greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30(3):784–791.
21. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating
periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength
Cond Res 2002; 16(2):250–255.
22. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM et al. Volume-equated high- and low-repetition
daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and
strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2016; 41(7):699–705.
23. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Walters J, Brannon AR, Kilpatrick MW, D’Agostino DP,
Cambell WI. Comparison of powerlifting performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating periodization. J. Strength Cond. Res 2017;
2:283–291.
24. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8(4):235–242.
References
1. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression
and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36(4):674–688.
Please cite this article in press as: Buckner SL, et al. The General Adaptation Syndrome: Potential misapplications to resistance exercise.
J Sci Med Sport (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.02.012