Self-reported sleep quantity, quality and sleep hygiene in elite athletes.

Sleep is essential for recovery and performance in elite athletes. While actigraphy-based studies revealed suboptimal sleep in athletes, information on their subjective experience of sleep is scarce. Relatively unexplored is also the extent to which athletes' sleep is adversely affected by environmental conditions and daytime behaviours, that is sleep hygiene. This study aimed to provide insight in sleep quantity, quality and its putative association with sleep hygiene. Participants were 98 elite (youth) athletes competing at the highest (inter-)national level. Sleep quantity, quality and sleep hygiene were assessed once covering a 1-month period by using established (sub)clinical questionnaires, and repeatedly during 7 consecutive days. Sleep quality was generally healthy, although 41% of all athletes could be classified as 'poor sleeper', and 12% were identified as having a sleep disorder. Daily self-monitoring revealed sleep durations of 8:11 ± 0:45 h, but elevated wake after sleep onset of 13 ± 19 min. Sleep quality, feeling refreshed, and morning vigor were moderate at best. Regarding sleep hygiene, general measures revealed irregular sleep-wake patterns, psychological strain and activating pre-sleep behaviours. At the daily level, blue-light exposure and late-evening consumption of heavy meals were frequently reported. General sleep hygiene revealed significant associations with sleep quality (0.45 < r > 0.50; P < 0.001). Results indicate that there is ample room for optimization, specifically in onset latency and in wake after sleep onset. Subtle improvements in sleep seem possible, and optimizing sleep hygiene, such as regular sleep-wake patterns and reducing psychological strain, may facilitate this sleep upgrading process.

Effects of Natural Between-Days Variation in Sleep on Elite Athletes' Psychomotor Vigilance and Sport-Specific Measures of Performance.

Performance capacity in athletes depends on the ability to recover from past exercise. While evidence suggests that athletic performance decreases following (partial) sleep deprivation and increases following sleep extension, it is unclear to which extent natural variation in sleep impacts performance. Sleep quantity and, for the first time, sleep stages were assessed among 98 elite athletes on three non-consecutive nights within a 7-day monitoring period, along with performance tests that were taken on standardized times each following morning. Performance assessment included psychomotor performance (10-minute psychomotor vigilance task) and sport-specific tests of fine (e.g., accuracy) and gross motor skills (e.g., endurance, power). Mixed-effects models were employed to assess the effect of sleep quantity (total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency) and sleep stage duration (light, deep, REM) on performance. Average TST was 7:30 ± 1:05 hours, with a mean variation of 57 minutes across days. Longer TSTs were associated with faster reaction times (p = 0.04). Analyses indicated small and inconsistent effects of sleep quantity (TST, SOL) and sleep staging (light sleep) on gross motor performance, and no effects on fine motor skill performance. Results indicate that natural variation in sleep quantity impacts psychomotor vigilance to a greater extent than athletic performance. Small or absent effects can be a consequence of the rather small variation in non-manipulated sleep. It is suggested that one night of compromised sleep may not be immediately problematic, but that more extreme sleep loss or accumulated sleep debt may have more severe consequences.

Dim light, sleep tight, and wake up bright - Sleep optimization in athletes by means of light regulation.

Despite an elevated recovery need, research indicates that athletes often exhibit relatively poor sleep. Timing and consolidation of sleep is driven by the circadian system, which requires periodic light-dark exposure for stable entrainment to the 24-hour day, but is often disturbed due to underexposure to light in the morning (e.g. low-level indoor lighting) and overexposure to light in the evening (e.g. environmental and screen-light). This study examined whether combining fixed sleep schedules with light regulation leads to more consolidated sleep. Morning light exposure was increased using light-emitting goggles, whereas evening light exposure was reduced using amber-lens glasses. Using a within-subject crossover design, twenty-six athletes (14 female, 12 male) were randomly assigned to start the intervention with the light-regulation-week or the no light-regulation-week. Sleep was monitored by means of sleep diaries and actigraphy. Due to low protocol adherence regarding the fixed sleep-wake schedules, two datasets were constructed; one including athletes who kept a strict sleep-wake schedule (N = 8), and one that also included athletes with a more lenient sleep-wake schedule (N = 25). In case of a lenient sleep-wake schedule, light regulation improved self-reported sleep onset latency (Δ SOL = 8 min). This effect was stronger (Δ SOL = 17 min) and complemented by enhanced subjective sleep quality in case of a strict sleep-wake schedule. None of the actigraphy-based estimates differed significantly between conditions. To conclude, light regulation may be considered a potentially effective strategy to improve subjective sleep, but less obtrusive methods should be explored to increase protocol compliance.

Restricting short-wavelength light in the evening to improve sleep in recreational athletes - A pilot study.

Sleep is crucial for recovery and skill acquisition in athletes. Paradoxically, athletes often encounter difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep, while having sufficient sleep opportunity. Blue (short-wavelength) light as emitted by electronic screens is considered a potential sleep thief, as it suppresses habitual melatonin secretion. The current study sought to investigate whether blocking short-wavelength light in the evening can improve sleep onset latency and potentially other sleep parameters among recreational athletes. The study had a within-subject crossover design. Fifteen recreational athletes, aged between 18 and 32 years (12 females, 3 males), were randomly assigned to start the intervention period with either the light restriction condition (LR; amber-lens glasses), or the no-light restriction condition (nLR; transparent glasses). Sleep hygiene practices, actigraphy and diary-based sleep estimates were monitored during four consecutive nights within each condition. Sleep hygiene practices did not significantly differ between conditions. Results indicate that blocking short-wavelength light in the evening, as compared to habitual light exposure, significantly shortened subjective sleep onset latency (Δ = 7 min), improved sleep quality (Δ = 0.6; scale 1-10), and increased alertness the following morning. Actigraphy-based sleep estimates showed no significant differences between conditions. Blocking short-wavelength light in the evening by means of amber-lens glasses is a cost-efficient and promising means to improve subjective sleep estimates among recreational athletes in their habitual home environment. The relatively small effects of the current study may be strengthened by additionally increasing morning- and daytime light exposure and, potentially, by reducing the alerting effects of media use before bedtime.

Exposure to bright light biases effort-based decisions.

Secreted in the evening and the night, melatonin suppresses activity of the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, a brain pathway involved in reward processing. However, exposure to bright light diminishes-or even prevents-melatonin secretion. Thus, we hypothesized that reward processing, in the evening, is more pronounced in bright light (vs. dim light). Healthy human participants carried out three tasks that tapped into various aspects of reward processing (effort expenditure for rewards task [EEfRT]; two-armed bandit task [2ABT]; balloon analogue risk task [BART). Brightness was manipulated within-subjects (bright vs. dim light), in separate evening sessions. During the EEfRT, participants used reward-value information more strongly when they were exposed to bright light (vs. dim light). This finding supported our hypothesis. However, exposure to bright light did not significantly affect task behavior on the 2ABT and the BART. While future research is necessary (e.g., to zoom in on working mechanisms), these findings have potential implications for the design of physical work environments. (PsycINFO Database Record

Train hard, sleep well? Perceived training load, sleep quantity and sleep stage distribution in elite level athletes.

OBJECTIVES: Sleep is essential for recovery and performance in elite athletes. While it is generally assumed that exercise benefits sleep, high training load may jeopardize sleep and hence limit adequate recovery. To examine this, the current study assessed objective sleep quantity and sleep stage distributions in elite athletes and calculated their association with perceived training load. DESIGN: Mixed-methods. METHODS: Perceived training load, actigraphy and one-channel EEG recordings were collected among 98 elite athletes during 7 consecutive days of regular training. RESULTS: Actigraphy revealed total sleep durations of 7:50±1:08h, sleep onset latencies of 13±15min, wake after sleep onset of 33±17min and sleep efficiencies of 88±5%. Distribution of sleep stages indicated 51±9% light sleep, 21±8% deep sleep, and 27±7% REM sleep. On average, perceived training load was 5.40±2.50 (scale 1-10), showing large daily variability. Mixed-effects models revealed no alteration in sleep quantity or sleep stage distributions as a function of day-to-day variation in preceding training load (all p's>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate healthy sleep durations, but elevated wake after sleep onset, suggesting a potential need for sleep optimization. Large proportions of deep sleep potentially reflect an elevated recovery need. With sleep quantity and sleep stage distributions remaining irresponsive to variations in perceived training load, it is questionable whether athletes' current sleep provides sufficient recovery after strenuous exercise.