The training of international level distance runners

Abstract

A limited number of studies have examined the distribution of training at different intensities during longer training periods among elite runners. Runners who want to reach international level in distance running should run ≥110 km/week at the age of 18–19 years. For senior runners, it appears that training volumes around 150–200 km/week are appropriate for 5000 and 10,000 m runners and 120–160 km/week for 1500 m runners. It also appears to be beneficial to combine these weekly training volumes with two to four sessions per week at the velocity at the anaerobic threshold pace, and one to two sessions per week above velocity at the anaerobic threshold pace during the preparation period. For runners who compete over distances from 1500 to 10,000 m, it seems appropriate to reduce the number of sessions carried out at velocity at the anaerobic threshold pace and to increase the number of sessions at specific race pace in the pre-competition period and during the competition period. Top results for the marathon can be achieved by a “low volume/high intensity model” (150–200 km/week), as well as by a “high volume/low intensity model” (180–260 km/week).

Keywords

Anaerobic threshold marathon running periodization principles of training

Introduction

Training regimens used by distance runners throughout history have all aimed to optimize the athletes’ level of performance. In this article, training regimens of former and current elite distance runners are reviewed, and training volume and intensity distribution of distance runners are examined. For the purposes of this review, race distances between 1500 m and the marathon (42,195 m) are considered. These events are dominated by energy contribution of the aerobic energy system.^1,2 To improve the level of performance in distance running events, the training must have a positive effect on one or more of the main physiological factors that underlie success in these distances. These factors are maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max),^1–3 running economy (RE),^2,4,5 utilization of maximum oxygen uptake (%VO_2max),^6,7 velocity at the anaerobic threshold (vAT)^8,9 and velocity at VO_2max (vVO_2max).^3,10,11

There is consensus among coaches and researchers that it is the interaction between three variables: training volume (kilometers run per unit of time), training frequency, and training intensity that affects the above-mentioned physiological factors and level of performance in distance running events.¹² Yet, despite attempts to describe optimal training models for distance runners,^13–16 the ideal relationship between the three above-mentioned training variables is a recurring topic of discussion.^12,17–19 A search in databases like Sport Discus, ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar, and other sources, using the terms “distance running”, “elite level”, “training volume”, “training intensity”, and “intensity distribution”, found eight articles that have systematically registered the training volume and intensity distribution of elite runners over longer periods of time (Table 1). In addition, one article reported training volume among middle- (n = 40) and long distance runners (n = 32) at a national and international level over a period of 8–9 years²⁸ and another study registered training volume and intensity distribution over a period of six months among distance runners at regional level.²⁹ Other studies have reported training volume and intensity distribution among elite runners based on questionnaires targeted at runners or coaches,^14,15 and some articles have provided examples of the training volume and training distribution of elite runners during selected training weeks during different periods of the training year.^30,31 A study by Ingham et al.³² has described how a shift in training distribution from one year to another resulted in an improvement in physiological abilities and performance for a 1500 m runner at an international level.

Table 1.

Studies that have reported training volume and training intensity distribution among elite distance runners over longer periods.

Registration period	n	Gender	Type of runners	References
5 years	1	M	1500 m runner	20
2 years	1	F	Female track and marathon runner	21
1 year	1	F	Female track and marathon runner	22
1 year	4	M	Jr. track and cross country runners	23
1 year	6	M (3) and F (3)	Marathon (3) and long distance (3) runners	24
16 weeks	3	M	Marathon runners	25
12 weeks	20	M (10) and F (10)	Marathon runners (elite and sub-elite)	26
9 weeks	20	M (13) and F (7)	Long distance and cross country runners	27

Before analyzing training volume, training intensity, and intensity distribution of elite distance runners in the above-mentioned articles, a rough historical overview of the evolution of training principles that have been used by the best contemporary distance runners from the 1880s until the 1980s is warranted.

Historical trends

Training principles used by distance runners from the late 1880s were influenced by training theories that provided success for outstanding runners, as well as by physiological research. Some athletes and coaches focused on high intensity training and lower training volume, whereas others prioritized greater training volume with lower intensity. Still others combined large training volumes with elements of more intensive training. Coaches who were associated with outstanding runners have tended to be trendsetters for contemporary coaches and athletes.

* In the 1880s, Walter George was given the title “Champion of Champions” for his remarkable running performances, and in 1885, he ran the mile in 4:12.8 min.³³ It took 30 years before anyone ran the mile faster. George’s training volume was rather low, but he ran daily and he ran fast. He hardly ever ran more than two miles on a single day, and even those two miles may have been broken into two separate training sessions.³³

* During the 1920s and 1930s, Finnish runners dominated international distance running. Finnish sports professor Lauri Pikhala had lived in the United States and brought training ideas home to Finland that inspired Pavo Nurmi and several other Finnish runners in the 1920s. Nurmi developed a training system that was a precursor to interval training.³⁴ Competing in three Olympics (1920, 1924, and 1928), he won nine gold medals, three silver medals, and one bronze medal. Nurmi also set 22 world records over distances from 1500 m to 20,000 m. In the early years of his career, Nurmi seldom trained during the winter. Later in his career, he would walk for long distances and also use a mix of walking and running during the winter.³⁵

* The 1930s: Woldemar Gerschler was the coach of the German middle distance runners before and after the Second World War. Gerschler coached, among others, Rudolf Harbig, who set a world record in the 800 m in 1939 with a time of 1:46.6. Gerschler cooperated closely with physiologist Herbert Reindell and they introduced the term “interval training.”³⁴ Gerschler later became the coach of the British runner Gordon Pirie, who set a world record for the 5000 m in 1956 with a time of 13:36.8.

* The 1940s: Gösta Holmer was the coach of Gunder Hägg and Arne Anderson. These legendary Swedes, who set numerous world records over distances from 1500 to 5000 m, developed “fartlek” as a training method. This training consisted of intensive efforts of varying distance and duration, interspersed with slower running.³⁶ Hägg was the first to break the 14 min barrier for the 5000 m (13:58.2).

* The 1950s: Emil Zatopek won the 10,000 m in the Olympic Games in 1948, as well as the 5000 m, 10,000 m, and marathon at the 1952 Olympics. Zatopek would run more kilometers per week than top runners had done before him.³⁷ His training consisted primarily of large series of interval training, typically on the track. Examples of training sessions were 60 m × 400 m in 80 s or 40 m × 400 m in 68 s, with 200 m jog recovery.³⁴ Zatopek developed his training theories without any strong influence from coaches or physiologists. On one occasion, when pursuing a theory that running while holding his breath would enhance his competitive performance, he passed out at the side of the road. He had been trying to beat his own record for the number of telephone poles he could pass.

In the 1950s, Miholov Igloi had success as coach for Hungarian runners Sandor Iharos, Laszlo Tabori, and Sandor Rozsnyi. In 1955 and 1956, Iharos set world records in the 1500 m (3:40.8), 3000 m (7:55.6), 5000 m (13.40.6), and 10,000 m (28:42:8). The 1500 m record was equaled by Tabori in 1956. Rozsnyi was second in the 3000 m steeplechase at the Olympic Games in 1956. These Hungarians based their training principles on Gerschler’s interval training, but used an even higher training intensity than Gerschler. Igloi championed the idea that the runners should train twice a day.³⁴

Another coach who was a strong supporter of interval training in the 1950s was Franz Stampfl. Stampfl was the coach of British runners Roger Bannister, Chris Chataway, and Chris Brasher. Bannister was the first person in the world to run the mile under 4 min, running 3:59.4 in May 1954. During the same season, he became European champion in 1500 m. Chataway finished second in the 5000 m in the European Championships in 1954, and Brasher won 3000 m steeplechase in the 1956 Olympics. These runners ran intervals from 400 to 2200 m (1.5 miles) 3–4 times a week. The intensity of these intervals increased during late winter and spring.³⁴

* The 1960s signaled a departure by several coaches and athletes from a one-sided interval training regime. Ernest van Aaken was coach of Harold Norpoth (West Germany), who finished second in the 5000 m Olympics in 1964. van Aaken criticized the hard interval training regimes, proposing instead that effective long distance training should be founded on a base of long continuous running.³⁸ The New Zealander Arthur Lydiard was of the same opinion. He coached middle distance runner Peter Snell (three Olympic gold medals: 800 m 1960 and 1964, and 1500 m in 1964) as well as 5000 m runner Murray Halberg, who won Olympic gold in Rome in 1960. Lydiard had the philosophy that 800 m runners as well as marathon runners should have a basic training period (preparation period) rooted in long continuous distance running. During this period, they were to run 160 km/week. A period of hill running followed (6–8 weeks), and finally, 10–12 weeks of track training leading up to the “year’s run.”³⁹ Lydiard later became the national coach of Finland, and much of Finland’s success as a distance running nation in the 1970s and early 1980s was built on Lydiard’s training principles.

* In the 1970s and 1980s, many athletes who competed at an international level in distance running used a training regime based on Lydiard's high volume of continuous training principle, but in contrast to Lydiard, they also incorporated sessions of interval training during the preparation period.^40–42 The “hard/easy” training system is usually attributed to University of Oregon coaches Bill Bowerman and Bill Delinger. Bowerman and Delinger let the runners’ workouts vary from day to day in intensity and duration, typically with two or three hard days a week separated by easier days with continuous running.^43,44

From the 1970s and 1980s to the present day, most athletes who have competed at an international level in distance running have used a training regime where two to five weekly sessions of interval training have been combined with a relatively high volume of continuous training.^{31,40,41,45,46} It has also been recommended that women should train as much, and at the same relative intensity, as men.^22,47 A variety of journals, books, and other sources without review, have reported that successful distance runners have typically run between 120 and 250 km/week,^{31,37,40,42,45,46,48,49} distributed across 11 to 18 sessions per week.^31,34,37,49

Training volume and training intensity distribution

Training volume

The term training volume may have two meanings in training theory⁵⁰:

The totality of training effort or work done per time unit (day, week, month, year). Based on the principles of mechanics, this means that work = efficiency × time, or work = intensity × time.

The duration, the extent or the totality of measured hours used for training, or the number of kilometers or miles run per time unit (day, week, month or year).

Training volume expressed as kilometers or miles run per unit of time is the most widely used definition in international literature on running. This same meaning is also used by the above-mentioned experts and is the definition of “training volume” used in this article. Nevertheless, the connection between intensity and time is always important, and there is no doubt that the amount of work is greater when you run faster for a given time period, e.g., 1 h at a speed of 18 km/h instead of at a speed of 15 km/h.

Training volume among track runners (1500–10,000 m)

Grete Waitz, the outstanding Norwegian female long distance runner from the 1970s and 1980s, and nine-time New York Marathon winner, ran an average of 123 km/week in her best season as a track runner in 1979. She set a Nordic record in 3000 m (8:31.75) and a personal best in the 1500 m (4:00.58).²¹ She ran an average of 10–11 sessions per week.

Another Norwegian distance runner, Ingrid Kristiansen, was the world’s best female long distance runner in the mid 1980s. In 1986, she set world records in the 5000 m (14:37.33) and 10,000 m (30:13.76). During the 49 weeks from November 1985 to October 1986, her overall training volume was 7625 km. This gives an average training volume of 155 km/week.²² Kristiansen typically trained twice a day. In one week in January 1986, Kristiansen reported a total training volume of 225 km. This was the highest weekly volume reported in 1986. However, it should be mentioned that 80 of these 225 km were performed as cross-country skiing, whereas the remainder was running.

Irish runner Sonia O’Sullivan was the 1995 World Champion in the 5000 m. In 1998, she won the long and the shorter distance in the World Cross Country Championships and became European champion over 5000 and 10,000 m. Between November 1994 and May 1995, O’Sullivan typically ran 160 km/week. The highest volume reported for a single training week in this period was 180 km. She typically ran two sessions per day. During the competition period, the average weekly training volume was reduced to 115–120 km/week.³¹

During the last three decades, international distance running has been dominated by African runners. Billat et al.²⁷ studied the training program of Kenyan elite runners during a training week in Europe in April 2002. In addition, the athletes’ training diaries over a period of 8 weeks prior to this week were analyzed. The sample (n = 20) consisted of 7 women and 13 men. All runners in the study had finished among the top 30 in the Kenyan Cross Country Championships in 2002. According to Billat et al.,²⁷ these runners based their training on either a “high volume and low intensity model” (“HVLI model”) or a “low volume and high intensity model” (“LVHI model”). Men (n = 6) who used the LVHI model ran 158 ± 19 km/week and women (n = 6) who used this training model ran 127 ± 8 km/week. Men (n = 7) who followed a HVLI model ran 174 ± 17 km/week. These runners performed 10 to 16 running sessions per week during the reported 8–9 weeks.

The training volume reported for male HVLI-model Kenyan male runners corresponds with the training volume reported for the Norwegian female runner, Susanne Wigene, who finished second in the 10,000 m in the 2006 European Championships, running 30:32.22. In four different periods of the training year, she ran an average of 160–180 km/week.²⁴

According to Rabadan et al.,²⁸ Spanish male middle distance runners (n = 40) at a national and international level, during the period 2000–2008, ran 130–140 km/week in the preparation period. During the same period, male long distance runners (n = 32) at the same level, ran 160–180 km/week.

The average running volume for the 2012 European 1500 m champion Henrik Ingebrigtsen was 146 km/week in November and December 2011, followed by 156 km/week during 10 weeks from 1 January to the middle of March 2012, and 150 km/week from the middle of March to the end of May.²⁰

Training volume among young distance runners

A study of four young Norwegian distance runners (age 17–19 years), who were second in the team competition in the 2008 European Junior Cross Country Championships (finishing 2nd, 10th, 16th, and 20th place), ran in three different periods of the training year an average of 132.5 (±25.9), 115.7 (±22.9), and 145 (±22.9) km/week.²³ This is substantially more kilometers per week than Esteve-Lanao et al.²⁹ reported for young Spanish runners over a training period of 6 months. These runners had an average running volume of 70 km/week.

The primary distinction between the four Norwegian juniors and the Spanish runners was the number of kilometers run at a low intensity. In the study by Esteve-Lanao et al.,²⁹ it was found that the runners who ran the most kilometers per week were those who performed the best. This may be a contributing factor to the fact that the Norwegians, despite being younger than the Spaniards (17.8 ± 1 year vs. 23 ± 2 years), performed better. The Norwegian runners were closer to the world records over the distances 1500 and 5000 m than the Spanish runners.²³ The two juniors in the Norwegian study who ran the greatest number of kilometer per week in 2008, three seasons later (2011), became European champions for adolescents (<23 years) over 5000 m and 10,000 m, respectively. The third runner finished 18th in the European Cross Country Championships for adolescents (<23 years) in 2012, a championship in which the fourth runner, the European 1500 m track champion of 2012—Henrik Ingebrigtsen—won. This suggests that a relatively large training volume during adolescence has had a positive effect on their development as distance runners.

Training volume among marathon runners

In 1983, Grete Waitz won the London Marathon, the Marathon in the World Championship and the New York marathon. During 36 weeks from January to the end of August, she ran an average of 121 km/week.²¹

In 1985, Kristiansen set a world record in the London Marathon by running 2:21:06. Her average training volume during 15 weeks leading up to the race was 167 km/week.⁵¹ This includes the two final weeks where the volume was reduced to 131 and 95 km, respectively. The 95 km for the last week include the marathon race.

According to Billat et al.,²⁷ the Kenyan female runner Tegla Lourope, used a HVLI model (174 ± 17 km/week) when she, in Rotterdam in 1998, broke Ingrid Kristiansen’s world record in the marathon by running 2:20:47.

Billat et al.²⁶ registered training volume and training intensity for Portuguese and French marathon runners (n = 20) over a period of 12 weeks leading up to the Olympic trials in 2000. The group consisted of 10 elite (5 male and 5 female) and 10 sub-elite runners (5 male and 5 female). The five elite male athletes ran an average of 206 ± 26 km/week. This was significantly higher than the sub-elite runners who ran 168 ± 20 km/week. Total weekly running volume was not significantly different for females between performance levels (166 ± 20 km vs. 150 ± 17 for elite and sub-elite, respectively). Elite male runners ran 13.0 ± 0.7 sessions per week vs. 11.5 ± 1.7 for sub-elite runners. Female runners ran 12.4 ± 0.4 (elite) and 10.4 ± 1.7 (sub-elite) sessions per week.

Karp¹⁵ described the training of 2004 U.S. Olympic Marathon trial qualifiers. The number of kilometers per week reported by male elite runners was higher than that for national runners (155.6 ± 9.3 vs. 144.2 ± 26.5 km/week). The female elite runners also ran more than those at national level (135.8 ± 31.5 vs. 111.3 ± 23.3 km/week). Karp¹⁵ emphasizes that 74.8% of the training volume of the best American male marathon runners, and 68.5% of the volume of the best women, was run at a pace below average marathon pace. Another key point was that the best marathon runners who competed in the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials also ran faster than the second best marathon runners in track events (3000, 5000, and 10,000 m).

The two Norwegian female runners who, with times of 2:27:05 and 2:29:12, are number 3 and 4 on the Norwegian all-time female marathon statistic at the time of writing, were running an average of 180 and 200 km/week during a training year, the seasons (2004 and 2008) they ran their best marathon races.²⁴ Like Ingrid Kristiansen, these two runners ran 12–13 sessions per week.

According to Ferreira and Rolim,¹⁴ male marathon runners at the international level based their training on either a HVLI model or a LVHI model. Average training volume in the HVLI model was 200–260 km/week, with 80–85% of the training carried out at relatively low intensity (60–75% of VO_2max). In the LVHI model, the weekly training volume was 150–200 km/week, with a large percentage of training conducted at higher intensity (80–87% of VO_2max). Both of these models have been successfully used by marathon runners who have performed at a top international level.¹⁴

The British runner Paula Radcliffe, who at the time of writing holds the female world record for the marathon with the time of 2:15:25, ran between 192 and 256 km/week (120–160 miles/week) during the periods when she was in full marathon training.³⁰ She typically trained two sessions per day. She is a three-time winner of the London Marathon (2002, 2003, 2005) and three-time New York Marathon champion (2004, 2007, 2008).

In 2012, Stellingwerff²⁵ recorded training and food intake of three elite male marathon runners during the 16 weeks before they ran the marathon in, respectively, 2:11:23, 2:12:39, and 2:16:17. On average, they ran 182 km/week. The highest training volume reported in a single week was 231 km. These athletes ran an average of 13 sessions per week. Training volume reported for selected distance runners who have competed at an international level is listed in Tables 2 (female runners) and 3 (male runners).

Table 2.

Average training volume (km/week) reported for selected female elite distance runners during reported training periods.

Athlete(s)	Year	Main distance(s)	Reported period	km/week
Female track distance runners
Grete Waitz²¹	1979	1500 and 3000 m	November 1978–December 1979	123
Ingrid Kristiansen²²	1986	5000 and 10,000 m	49 weeks from November 1985–October 1986	155
Sonia O’Sullivan³¹	1994	5000 and 10,000 m	November 1994–May 1995	160
Kenyan runners (n = 6)²⁷	2002	Long distance and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	127 ± 8
Susanne Wigene²⁴	2006	5000 and 1000 m	November 2005–October 2006	167
Female marathon runners
Grete Waitz²¹	1983	Marathon	36 weeks from January to August 1983	121
Ingrid Kristiansen⁵¹	1985	Marathon and long distance	15 weeks leading up to London Marathon in 1985	167
Portuguese and French elite runners (n = 5)²⁶	2000	Marathon	12 weeks leading up to Olympic trials in 2000	166 ± 20
American elite runners (n = 9) (Olympic marathon trial qualifiers)¹⁵	2004	Marathon	Self-reported average training volume during a year	135.8 ± 31.5
Norwegian runners (n = 2)²⁴	2004 and 2008	Marathon	Average volume during a training year (11 months)	180 and 200
Paula Radcliffe³⁰	2002–2008	Marathon	Reported for periods she was in full marathon training	192–256

Table 3.

Average training volume (km/week) reported for selected male elite distance runners during reported training periods.

Athlete(s)	Year	Main distance(s)	Reported period	km/week
Male track distance runners
Kenyan long distance runners using HVLI model (n = 7)²⁷	2002	Long distances and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	174 ± 17
Kenyan long distance runners using LVHI model (n = 6)²⁷	2002	Long distances and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	158 ± 19
Spanish middle distance runners (n = 40)²⁸	2000–2008	Middle distances	Average training volume in the preparation period	130–140
Spanish long distance runners (n = 32)²⁸	2000–2008	Long distances	Average training volume in the preparation period	160–180
Henrik Ingebrigtsen²⁰	2012	1500 m	November 2011–May 2012	150
Young Norwegian distance runners, 17–19 years (n = 4)²³	2008	Cross country, 1500, 3000, and 5000 m	Preparation period: November–April	132.5 ± 25.9
Male marathon runners
Portuguese and French elite runners (n = 5)²⁶	2000	Marathon	12 weeks leading up to Olympic trials in 2000	206 ± 26
Elite runners using HVLI model (n = 5 coaches)¹⁴	1981–2003	Marathon	Based on questionnaire among coaches	200–260
Elite runners using LVHI mode (n = 5 coaches)¹⁴	1981–2003	Marathon	Based on questionnaire among coaches	150–200
American elite runners (n = 3) (Olympic marathon trial qualifiers)¹⁵	2004	Marathon	Self-reported average training volume during a year	155.6 ± 9.3
Elite Canadian marathon runners (n = 3)²⁵	2012	Marathon	Training registration of 16 weeks leading up to a marathon race	182

Training intensity distribution

Different intensity zone schemes have been used to describe the intensity distribution in endurance athletes.¹⁶ In the research literature, the aerobic training for endurance events is generally classified into three zones.^19,23,29,52 An intensity distribution in three aerobic zones has also been used in studies where exercise intensity has been related to ventilation and lactate. Training at an intensity below the first lactate (L1) and ventilatory threshold (V1) (zone 1) is defined as low intensity exercise with lactate <2 mmol/L. Zone 2 is classified as anaerobic threshold training between V1/L1 and the second lactate (L2) and ventilatory threshold (V2), and blood lactate concentrations between 2 and 4 mmol/L. Zone 3 is the training conducted in the intensity range of V2/L2, with lactate >4 mmol/L.^53–55 If we classify training on a scale with three aerobic zones, it would also be appropriate to include two zones to describe the anaerobic intensity distribution.⁵⁵ Zone 4 would be training of anaerobic endurance^56,57 and zone 5 would be sprint training.^58,59 A five-zone intensity scale based on three aerobic zones and two anaerobic zones, and adjusted for distance runners at the elite level, could be similar to that presented in Table 4. In Table 4, zone 2 is defined as lactate between 2 and 4 mmol/L. Reference values are based on measurements made with Lactate Pro LT – 1710TM.⁵⁵

Table 4.

Five-zone intensity scale: Intensity zones, running speed and type of training, lactate values during exercise, HR in % of HR_max, and presumed physiological effects of the training.⁵⁵

Intensity zone	Type of training	Lactate (mmol/L)	HR in % av HR_max	Physiological adaptation
1	Easy and moderate continuous running	0.7–2.0	62–82	Recovery and improved running economy^30,60
2	Threshold training	2.0–4.0	82–92	Increase vAT and VO_2max^61,62
3	Intensive aerobic intervals	4.0–8.0	92–97	Increase VO_2max^13,63,64
4	Anaerobic training, mainly at 800 m and 1500 m pace	>8.0	>97	Increase anaerobic capacity^56,57
5	Sprint			Increase speed^58,59

HR: heart rate.

It must be added that the transition between the different intensity zones does not exactly follow definite limits, and that intensity zones are not anchored to clearly defined physiological markers.¹⁶ The relationship between heart rate (HR) and lactate will also vary between different runners, and for the same athlete during a training period.⁶¹ Table 4 describes the type of training performed, typical lactate values for well-trained distance runners, HR in % of HR_max, and presumed physiological adaptation in response to training in the various zones. Table 4 is the intensity scale that will be referred to in this article.

Training distribution among track runners

Analyses of Grete Waitz’ training diaries from November 1978 to October 1979²¹ show that, as a track runner in 1979, she performed 52% of average running volume as moderate continuous running in zone 1, 43% as fast continuous running in zone 2, 2.5% in zone 3, 2% in zone 4, and 0.5% in zone 5. The 2% in zone 3 is mainly composed of competitions from 3000 m to 10,000 m. On average, she trained 10–11 sessions per week.²¹ As a marathon runner in 1983, her training volume and intensity distribution were similar to the 1979 season.²¹

Ingrid Kristiansen who from November 1985 to October 1986 ran an average of 155 km/week,²² performed 91.31% of this total training volume as easy and moderate running (zone 1). During the same 49 weeks, 4.7% of her training volume was performed at a speed between 3:10 and 3:40 min/km. These sessions were executed as continuous running over distances from 3 to 23 km. Her coach, Kaggestad,²² classified this training as anaerobic threshold training (zone 2). Only 3.5% of the training volume, performed in 45 sessions, was aerobic capacity training (zone 3). Zone 3 training was in the form of repetitions over distances from 400 to 1000 m carried out at 3000, 5000, or 10,000 m pace or competitions over 3000, 5000, and 10,000 m. In her training diary, she reported a total of 10 sessions of anaerobic capacity training in zone 4, which is 0.37% of the yearly training volume. This was performed as 200 or 300 m repetitions at 1500 m pace or competitions over 1500 m. Training classified as zone 5 includes 1162 stride repetitions between 60 and 100 m, 0.12% of the total yearly volume.²²

The 1994 the 5000 and 10,000 m European Champion, Sonia O’Sullivan, typically trained 14 sessions per week during the preparation period. One weekly session was performed as intervals between 800 and 1600 m where HR was between 90 and 95% of HR_max (zone 3), one session was hill running (10 × 1 min) (zone 4) and one session was a 15–16 mile (25,000–25,750 m) fast long run (zone 2). All other running sessions were easy and moderate continuous running (zone 1). In the competition period, she increased the number of high-intensity sessions at specific race pace, while reducing the weekly running volume to 120–130 km/week.³¹

A study of the training of Kenyan long distance track and cross country runners at an elite level has shown that some runners use the LVHI model, whereas others prefer the HVLI model.²⁷ The majority of female runners, and 6 of 13 male elite runners, used the LVHI model. The training volume of these runners was usually around 120–130 km/week. They typically performed two interval sessions per week. One session could be 10–20 × 400–600 m around VO_2max pace (zone 3) or 7 m × 200 m at 120% of vVO_2max (zone 4). The other weekly interval session might be longer intervals carried out at a pace between vVO_2max and vAT. According to Billat et al.,²⁷ this pace is close to specific 10,000 m speed (zone 3). Examples of such sessions are 10 m × 1000 m or 5 m × 2000 m.

The seven male distance runners who used the HVLI model incorporated several long runs around the anaerobic threshold speed (marathon pace to half marathon pace = zone 2) in their training regime. The duration of these sessions was between 45 and 70 min.

Enoksen et al.²⁴ analyzed the training diaries of six of the best long distance runners in Norway from the last decade. Three international level long distance runners (two males and one female) and three marathon runners (one male and two females) were included.

Of the track runners’ weekly running volume during the preparation period 76.4 ± 1.6% (123 ± 11 km) was continuous running in zone 1. The percentage of training performed in zone 2 was 19.6 ± 1.1% (31.6 ± 4.9 km). The training reported in zone 2 consisted of mainly interval sessions, though the training did include some hard continuous runs. During the preparation period (from 1 November until the end of February), the track runners performed two to four sessions per week in zone 2, with a variation from week to week according to the planned training structure. The percentage of running volume in zone 3 was 2.7 ± 1.5% (4.4 ± 3.6 km). This was mainly composed of more intensive interval sessions at close to 5000 m pace. Only 1.3 ± 0.2% (2 ± 1.3 km) of the training volume was reported to be anaerobic capacity training or speed training (zone 4 and 5). The intensity distribution in the pre-competition period was very similar to the distribution in the preparation period, except that these track runners performed more training in zone 4 (2.9 ± 0.8%). This was mainly track running at 1500 m pace.

A longitudinal study of the training of the 2012 European champion at 1500 m, Henrik Ingebrigtsen,²⁰ shows that in 2012, he performed 68.5% of his total training volume as easy and moderate running in zone 1 during the period from January to the middle of March. During the same period, 26.1% was performed as anaerobic threshold training (zone 2). This zone 2 training was performed as longer sessions of interval training over distances from 400 to 3000 m. In all, 3.8% of training was performed as aerobic high intensity training in zone 3 (primarily as one weekly session of hill running). Only 1.5% was performed as anaerobic training (zones 4 and 5). During the track competition period, the percentage of training performed at low intensity increased to 73% as a result of some training loads at anaerobic threshold pace being replaced by more intensive aerobic and anaerobic training sessions, requiring a lower training volume.

Training distribution among young distance runners

The four Norwegian junior runners who were second in the team competition in the 2008 European Cross Country Championships performed 78.3 ± 4.7% of their weekly training volume during the preparation period (November–March) as continuous running with a HR between 65 and 82% of HR_max (zone 1). In all, 19.5 ± 5.4% of total training volume was anaerobic threshold training with a HR between 82 and 92% of HR_max (zone 2). During the track competition period, less training was carried out as anaerobic threshold training. However, the amount of aerobic capacity training (zone 3), training at 10,000 m, 5000 m, and 3000 m race pace and competitions over these distances, increased from 1.3 ± 1.4% in the preparation period to 4.8 ± 3.2% in the competition period. Training at 800 and 1500 m pace (anaerobic capacity training) and competitions over these distances comprised 0.9 ± 1.3% of the total running volume (zone 4).²³

Training distribution among marathon runners

As mentioned earlier, marathon runners at a top international level have, like the Kenyan distance runners, used either the HVLI model or the LVHI model.¹⁴ Coaches who have trained male marathon runners at an international level using the LVHI model¹⁴ classify a kilometer pace during a continuous running session of between 4:10 and 3:45 min as easy, between 3:50 and 3:30 min/km as moderate and between 3:15 and 3:00 min/km as hard. Those coaches who trained their runners according to the HVLI model used the terms easy, moderate, and hard for slower paces per kilometer.

A weekly session of long intervals, such as 1000 m repetitions, was used by all the marathon coaches in the study by Ferreira and Rolim.¹⁴ For those who used a HVLI model, 15 m × 1000 m in 2:55 min with 45-s recovery could be a typical session. The LVHI-model runners typically ran each 1000 m repetition faster, but had fewer repetitions and longer recoveries. A total of 10 of the 12 coaches also incorporated a session of shorter intervals in their training regimen. Repeated 400 m efforts are examples of such intervals. In the competition period, the recommended number of 400 m repetitions was between 14 and 26. The coaches who advocated the greatest number of repetitions were those using the HVLI model. A session consisting of 26 m × 400 m in 68 s with 1 min recovery is cited as an example. Based on the pace for these interval sessions, it can be presumed that the interval sessions for the HVLI-model marathon runners are performed as threshold training (zone 2), whereas the interval sessions for the LVHI-model marathon runners are performed as more intensive aerobic training (zone 3).

Among the Kenyan women who have used a HVLI model is Tegla Lourope, who in 1998 and 1999 set world records in the marathon by running 2:20:47 in Rotterdam and 2:20:42 in Berlin. Lourope preferred a weekly interval session consisting of 6 × 1 mile (1609 m) with 200 - to 400 m jog recovery. According to Billat et al.,²⁷ this training session was performed at a pace between 5000 and 10,000 m speed (zone 3).

The female marathon runner Paula Radcliffe also used a training model based on a high training volume, but her training was not characterized by low intensity. During a number of long runs, she would run at speeds from 3:40 to 3:20 min/km.³⁰ In addition to these long runs, Radcliffe typically trained one session per week at anaerobic threshold speed (i.e. around 5:00 min/mile or 3:08 min/km) for an extended period, as well as one or two interval training sessions between 95 and 100% of VO_2max (zone 3) when she was in full marathon training.³⁰

Of the marathon runners’ weekly training volume during the preparation period in the study of Enoksen et al.,²⁴ 83.6 ± 4.0% (156.2 ± 21 km) was easy and moderate continuous running in zone 1. The percentage of training volume performed in zone 2 was 12.7 ± 3.5% (23.7 ± 8.2 km), with a HR between 82 and 87% of HR_max. During this period, 2.5 ± 1.2% (4.7 ± 2.4 km) of the training was run at 10,000 m pace (zone 3). Only 1.2 ± 0.7% (2 ± 0.9 km) of the training volume was reported to be anaerobic capacity training or speed training (zones 4 and 5). Compared with the preparation and the pre-competition periods, the marathon runners volume performed in zone 2 in the competition period was almost identical to the two previous periods, but they increased the amount of training in zone 3 during the competition period (4.1 ± 2.9%).

The three marathon runners in the study by Stellingwerff²⁵ had the following intensity distribution over a period of 16 weeks: 74% of the training sessions were run at low intensity (zone 1), 11% at intensity around the anaerobic threshold (zone 2) and 15% of sessions were conducted at speeds above the anaerobic threshold (mainly zone 3).

In the 12 weeks leading up to the Olympic trials, Billat et al.²⁶ reported that elite Portuguese and French male marathon runners typically ran more kilometers at marathon pace (zone 2) and more kilometers at 3000 and 10,000 m pace (zone 3) than did female elite runners.

Tables 5 and 6 show reported training intensity distribution for elite female (Table 5) and male (Table 6) runners mentioned in the articles in Table 1 during selected training periods. In addition, Ingrid Kristiansen’s training during 15 weeks leading up to her world record for the marathon in 1985 has been examined for the purpose of this review.⁵¹ In Tables 5 and 6, zone 2 is defined as marathon- and half-marathon pace, zone 3 is 3000, 5000 and 10,000 m pace.

Table 5.

Reported training intensity distribution for elite female distance runners during selected periods of a training year.

Athlete(s)	Distance	Training period	Average volume (km/week)	Zone 1 (%)	Zone 2 (%)	Zone 3 (%)	Zone 4 (%)	Zone 5 (%)
Track runners
Grete Waitz²¹	1500/3000 m	November 1978–October 1979	123	52	43	2.5	2	0.5
Ingrid Kristiansen²²	5000/10,000 m	November 1985–October 1986	155	91.31	4.7	3.5	0.37	0.12
Susanne Wigene²⁴	5000/10,000 m	November 2005–October 2006	167	77.5	17	2.5	2	1
Kenyan runners (n = 6)²⁷	Long distance and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	127 ± 8	88.4	0	3.6 ± 4.1	8 ± 2.8
Marathon runners
Grete Waitz²¹	Marathon	36 weeks from January to August 1983	121	50	45	3.5	1	0.5
Ingrid Kristiansen	Marathon	15 weeks leading up to London marathon 1985	167	90.5	5	3	1	0.5
Norwegian runners (n = 2)²⁴	Marathon	11 months (in 2004 and 2008, respectively)	190 ± 10	84 ± 4	12 ± 3.5	2.5 ± 1.3	1 ± 0.5	0.5 ± 0.2
Portuguese and French runners (n = 5)²⁶	Marathon	12 weeks leading up to Olympic trials in 2000	168 ± 20	76.5	13.5	10

Table 6.

Reported training intensity distribution for elite male distance runner during selected periods of a training year.

Athlete(s)	Distance	Training period	Average volume (km/week)	Zone 1 (%)	Zone 2 (%)	Zone 3 (%)	Zone 4 (%)	Zone 5 (%)
Track runners
Kenyan HVLI runners (n = 7)²⁷	Long distances and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	174 ± 17	84.2	14.4 ± 6.8	1.4 ± 6.8
Kenyan LVHI runners (n = 6)²⁷	Long distances and cross country	9 weeks during spring 2002	158 ± 19	83.8	6.9 ± 5.6	4.3 ± 2.4	5.0 ± 2.6
Norwegian junior runners (n = 4)²³	Cross country, 1500, 3000, and 5000 m	January–April 2008	132.5 ± 25.9	78.3 ± 4.7	19.6 ± 1.1	1.4 ± 1.4	0.7 ± 0.5	0.5 ± 0.3
Henrik Ingebrigtsen²⁰	1500 m	January–middle of March 2012	155	68.5	26.1	3.8	1	0.5
Marathon runners
Portuguese and French runners (n = 5)²⁶	Marathon	12 weeks leading up to Olympic trials in 2000	206 ± 26	78	12	10
Canadian runners^a (n = 3)²⁵	Marathon	16 weeks leading up to a marathon race	180	74^a	11^a	15^a

The percentage in different zones in this study is expressed in percent of total number of training sessions during the reported period.

Conclusion

According to documented training, successful distance runners, competing primarily over distances from 1500 m to marathon, have typically run between 120 and 260 km/week.^{14,15,20,21,24,27,28,30,31} Kenyan runners who have achieved success with training volumes between 120 and 150 km/week typically trained with higher exercise intensity than those who ran >200 km/week.²⁷ Among Kenyan long distance runners, the training volume is reported to be higher for male than female runners.²⁷ High training volume is often a result of many weekly training sessions, and male distance runners from Kenya who have high weekly training volumes often run three times per day.²⁷

For senior 5000 and 10,000 m runners, training volumes around 150–200 km/week for male runners^24,27 and 120–170 km/week for female runners^21,24,27 appear to be appropriate during the preparation period. The 2012 male European 1500 m champion had an average volume of 145–156 km during different parts of the training year.²⁰ It appears to be beneficial to combine these weekly training volumes with two to four sessions at threshold speed (zone 2) and one or two sessions of training in zones 3 or 4 in the preparation period. For athletes competing over distances from 1500 to 10,000 m, it is recommended to reduce the number of sessions and the number of kilometers run in zone 2 (vAT pace) and increase the number of sessions at specific race pace during the pre-competition and competition periods.

Male marathon runners at the international level run, on average, between 150 and 260 km/week. It has been reported that marathon runners who ran the fewest kilometers per week followed a program with higher intensity than those who ran a greater number of kilometers per week.¹⁴ For male marathon runners who use a HVLI model, it is recommended to run between 180 and 260 km/week, with 80–90% of total volume composed of easy and moderate continuous running in zone 1. One, two, or three weekly sessions should be performed in zone 2 and one session in zone 3 or, alternatively, one session in zone 2 and one or two sessions in zone 3. It is recommended to reduce the training volume the last two weeks before a marathon race. Top results for the marathon can also be achieved with lower training volumes (150–200 km/week), using the LVHI model. This requires higher intensity for the continuous running sessions and interval workouts with fewer repetitions, higher intensity and longer recovery between the intervals, compared with the HVLI model.¹⁴

For Portuguese, French,²⁶ and American¹⁵ marathon runners, training volume had been higher for male than female runners.

The world record holder for the women’s marathon (at the time of writing) used a combination of the HVLI model and the LVHI model.³⁰ She ran between 192 and 256 km/week (120–160 miles) during the periods when she was in full marathon training. This is a higher volume than reported for Grete Waitz in 1983,²¹ Ingrid Kristiansen in 1985,⁵¹ for Portuguese and French female marathon runners in 2000,²⁶ and for American female marathon runners in 2004.¹⁵

However, training volume (kilometers per week) and training intensity must be considered in relation to the individual athlete’s level, how many years the runner has been at the international level and from the athlete’s individual characteristics.¹⁴ In contrast to scientists, the challenge for a coach is to identify training that is optimal over time for the individual athlete, rather than designing a workout that gives the greatest average progression for a larger group following a limited period of training.⁶⁵

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Foster

. VO2max and training indices as determination of competitive running performance. J Sports Sci 1983; 1: 13–22.

Noakes

Myburgh

Schall

. Peak treadmill running velocity during the VO2max test predicts running performance. J Sports Sci 1990; 8: 35–45.

Ingham

Whyte

Pedlar

. Determinants of 800 m and 1500 m running performance using allometric models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 345–350.

Conley

Krahenbuhl

. Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 357–360.

Morgan

Martin

Krahenbuhl

. Factors affecting running economy. Sports Med 1989; 7: 310–330.

Bassett

Howley

. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 70–84.

Noakes

Physiological capacity of the elite runner. In: Bangsbo

Larsen

(eds). Running and science: an interdisciplinary perspective, Copenhagen: Institute of Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 2001, pp. 19–47.

Faude

Kindermann

Meyer

. Lactate threshold concepts: How valid are they? Sports Med 2009; 39: 469–490.

Tolfrey

Hansen

Dutton

. Physiological correlates of 2-mile run performance as determined using a novel on-demand treadmill. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2009; 34: 763–772.

10.

Daniels

Scardina

. Interval training and performance. Sports Med 1984; 1: 327–334.

11.

Bosquet

Leger

Legros

. Methods to determine aerobic endurance. Sports Med 2002; 32: 675–700.

12.

Midgley

McNaughton

Jones

. Training to enhance the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance. Sports Med 2007; 37: 857–880.

13.

Billat

. Interval training for performance: A scientific and empirical practice: Special recommendations for middle- and long-distance running. Part II: Anaerobic interval training. Sports Med 2001; 31: 75–90.

14.

Ferreira

Rolim

. The evolution of marathon training: A comparative analysis of elite runners’ training programmes. New Stud Athletics 2006; 21: 29–37; 108–111.

15.

Karp JR. How they train. Running Times, 2007 (351), pp.32–33.

16.

Seiler

Tønnessen

. Intervals, thresholds and long slow distance: The role of intensity and duration in endurance training. Sportscience 2009; 24: 1340–1345.

17.

Brandon

. Physiological factors associated with middle distance running performance. Sports Med 1995; 19: 268–277.

18.

Grant G. No short-cuts to the top. Athletics Weekly (Descartes Publishing Ltd), 2009, p.26.

19.

Seiler

Kjerland

GØ

. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: Is there evidence for an optimal distribution? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006; 16: 49–56.

20.

Tjelta

. A longitudinal case study of the training of the 2012 European 1500 m track champion. Int J Appl Sports Sci 2013; 25: 11–18.

21.

Tjelta

Tønnessen

Enoksen

. A case study of the training of nine times New York marathon winner Grete Waitz. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2014; 9: 139–158.

22.

Kaggestad

. So Trainiert Ingrid Kristiansen 1986. Leichtatletik 1987; 38: 831–834.

23.

Tjelta

Enoksen

. Training characteristics of male junior cross country and track runners on European top level. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 193–203.

24.

Enoksen

Tjelta

. Distribution of training volume and intensity of elite male and female track and marathon runners. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2011; 6: 273–294.

25.

Stellingwerff

. Case study: Nutrition and training periodization in three elite marathon runners. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2012; 22: 392–400.

26.

Billat

Demarle

Slawinski

. Physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 2089–2097.

27.

Billat

Lepretre

Heugas

. Training and bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female Kenyan runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 297–304.

28.

Rabadan

Diaz

Calderon

. Physiological determinants of speciality of elite middle- and long-distance runners. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 975–982.

29.

Esteve-Lanao

San Juan

Earnest

. How do endurance runners actually train? Relationship with competition performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 496–504.

30.

Jones

. The physiology of the world record holder for the women’s marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1: 101–116.

31.

Tjelta

Enoksen

Training volume and intensity. In: Bangsbo

Larsen

(eds). Running and science: an interdisiciplinary perspective, Copenhagen: Institute of Exercise and Sport Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 2001, pp. 149–177.

32.

Ingham

Fudge

Pringle

. Training distribution, physiological profile, and performance for a male international 1500-m runner. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2012; 7: 193–195.

33.

Krise

Squires

. Fast track, the history of distance running since 884 B.C, Brattleboro, Vermont: The Stephen Green Press, 1982.

34.

Brook

. Endurance running events, Birmingham, England: British Athletic Federation, 1992.

35.

Wilt F. How they train. Los Altos, CA: Track and Field News, 1973.

36.

Holmer G. The way to the record. A book for athletic coaches [in Norwegian: Veien til rekorden. Instruksjonsbok i friidrett]. Oslo: Forlagshuset, 1947.

37.

Karikosk

. Training volume in distance running. Modern Athlete Coach 1984; 22: 18–20.

38.

van Aaken

. Kritik des Intervall trainings, Eigenverlag: Freiburger Pragung aus Biochemie und Praxis, 1964.

39.

Lydiard A and Gilmour G. Running the Lydiard way. California: World Publishing, 1978.

40.

Burfoot

. Training the hard/easy way. Runners World 1981; 16: 57–105.

41.

Temple

. Cross country and road running, London: Stanly Paul, 1980.

42.

Ferreira

. Experience in Oporto. Track Field Q Rev 1983; 83: 38–41.

43.

Dellinger B and Freeman B. The competitive runners book. New York: Colliers Books, 1984.

44.

Moritani

deVries

. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 58: 115–130.

45.

Tjelta LI. Middle and long distance running in Kenya [in Norwegian: Mellom- og langdistanseløping i Kenya]. Kondis, 2003, 3.

46.

Evertsen E. Long distance running in Kenya [in Norwegian: Kenyansk langdistanseløping]. Idrettsmagasinet, 1998, 1.

47.

Lenzi G. The women’s marathon: Preparing for an important event in the season. In: XII congress European coaches association, Acoteias Portugal, 1983.

48.

Tjelta

. British middle distance training in the 1980s [in Norwegian: Britisk mellomdistansetrening i 1980 årene]. Kondis 2007; 6: 26–28.

49.

Skah K. Training in Marokko. In: Nordic coaches conference. Oslo, 1997. Khalid Skah in Nordic Coaches Conference.

50.

Gjerset

. The science of training [in Norwegian: Idrettens treningslære], Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1992.

51.

Tjelta LI and Kristiansen I. Analysis of Ingrid Kristiansen’s training diary from the season 1985. 2015. Unpublished material.

52.

Zapico

Calderon

Benito

. Evolution of physiological and haematological parameters with training load in elite male road cyclists: a longitudinal study. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2007; 47: 191–196.

53.

Lucia

Hoyos

Carvajal

. Heart rate response to professional road cycling: the tour de France. Int J Sports Med 1999; 20: 167–172.

54.

Lucia

Hoyos

Santalla

. Tour de France versus Vuelta a Espana: Which is harder? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 872–878.

55.

Tjelta LI. The training process in distance running at an international level. Analysis of training volume, training intensity and demands to physical capacity [in Norwegian: Treningsprosessen i distanseløp på internasjonalt nivå. En analyse av treningsmengde, treningsintensitet og krav til fysisk kapasitet]. Dr. Philos Thesis, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, 2014.

56.

Balasekaran

Keong

Robertson

. Energy system contribution during 1500m running in untrained and endurance trained male college students. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 299–299.

57.

Buchheit

Laursen

. High-intensity interval training, solutions to the programming puzzle. Sports Med 2013; 43: 927–954.

58.

Haugen

Tønnessen

Leirstein

. Not quite so fast: Effect of training at 90% sprint speed on maximal and repeated-sprint ability in soccer players. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1979–1986.

59.

Ufland

Ahmaidi

Buchheit

. Repeated-sprint performance, locomotor profile and muscle oxygen uptake recovery: Effect of training background. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 924–930.

60.

Pate

Macera

Bailey

. Physiological, anthropometric, and training correlates of running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: 1128–1133.

61.

Tjelta

Dyrstad

. Relationship between velocity at anaerobic threshold and factors affecting velocity at anaerobic threshold in elite distance runners. Int J Appl Sports Sci 2012; 24: 8–17.

62.

Tanaka

Watanabe

Konishi

. Longitudinal associations between anaerobic threshold and distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1986; 55: 248–252.

63.

Laursen

Jenkins

. The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training: Optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports Med 2002; 32: 53–73.

64.

Midgley

McNaughton

Wilkinson

. Is there an optimal training intensity for enhancing the maximal oxygen uptake of distance runners?: Empirical research findings, current opinions, physiological rationale and practical recommendations. Sports Med 2006; 36: 117–132.

65.

Paton

Hopkins

. Seasonal changes in power of competitive cyclists: Implication for monitoring performance. J Sci Med Sport 2005; 8: 375–381.