Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sports Medicine - Open
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00438-7
REVIEW ARTICLE
The Training Characteristics ofWorld-Class
Distance Runners: AnIntegration ofScientic
Literature andResults-Proven Practice
Thomas Haugen1* , Øyvind Sandbakk2,3, Stephen Seiler4 and Espen Tønnessen1
Abstract
In this review we integrate the scientific literature and results-proven practice and outline a novel framework for
understanding the training and development of elite long-distance performance. Herein, we describe how funda-
mental training characteristics and well-known training principles are applied. World-leading track runners (i.e., 5000
and 10,000 m) and marathon specialists participate in 9 ± 3 and 6 ± 2 (mean ± SD) annual competitions, respec-
tively. The weekly running distance in the mid-preparation period is in the range 160–220 km for marathoners and
130–190 km for track runners. These differences are mainly explained by more running kilometers on each session
for marathon runners. Both groups perform 11–14 sessions per week, and ≥ 80% of the total running volume is
performed at low intensity throughout the training year. The training intensity distribution vary across mesocycles
and differ between marathon and track runners, but common for both groups is that volume of race-pace running
increases as the main competition approaches. The tapering process starts 7–10 days prior to the main competition.
While the African runners live and train at high altitude (2000–2500 m above sea level) most of the year, most lowland
athletes apply relatively long altitude camps during the preparation period. Overall, this review offers unique insights
into the training characteristics of world-class distance runners by integrating scientific literature and results-proven
practice, providing a point of departure for future studies related to the training and development in the Olympic
long-distance events.
Keywords: Endurance, Training periodization, Aerobic conditioning, Olympic athletes, Training logs
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Key Points
• is review bridges the gap between science and
results-proven practice regarding how training prin-
ciples and training methods should be applied for the
Olympic long-distance events and identified clear
distinctions in training organization between track
runners and marathon specialists
• e weekly running distance is in the range 160–
220km for marathoners and 130–190km for track
runners, with both groups performing 11–14 ses-
sions per week, and ≥ 80% of the total running vol-
ume at low intensity
• Training intensity distribution varies across meso-
cycles and differs between marathon and track run-
ners, but common for both groups is that volume of
race-pace running increases as the main competition
approaches
Background
Training for long-distance running (LDR) aims to
improve the “big three” performance-determining vari-
ables: maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max; the highest
rate at which the body can take up and utilize oxygen
Open Access
*Correspondence: thomas.haugen@kristiania.no
1 School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, PB 1190,
Sentrum, 0107 Oslo, Norway
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 2 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
during severe exercise), fractional utilization (the ability
to sustain a high percentage of VO2max when running),
and running economy (VO2 at a given submaximal run-
ning velocity). Together, these variables integrate the sus-
tained ability to produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
aerobically and convert muscular work to power/speed
[1–11]. International runners demonstrate different com-
binations of these determinants, as an “acceptable value”
in one variable can be compensated for with extremely
high values in the other variables. In addition, a “fourth
variable,” neuromuscular power/anaerobic capacity, plays
an important role in the decisive end phase of tactical
track races [12]. Further, classic laboratory testing may
not capture a “fifth variable,” fatigue resistance associated
with specific adaptations that delay muscular deteriora-
tion and fatigue and enable maintaining race pace over
the final 7–10km of an elite marathon [13, 14]. Different
time courses in the development of these performance
determinants are very likely. is is exemplified by a case
study of former marathon world record holder Paula
Radcliffe who improved running economy by ~ 15%
between 1991 and 2003, while
˙
V
O2max remained essen-
tially stable at ~ 70ml kg−1 min−1 [5].
Most world-class long-distance runners engage in sys-
tematic training for 8–10years prior to reaching a high
international standard [15]. Different pathways to excel-
lence have been described, as both early and late spe-
cialization, and different backgrounds from other sports,
can provide a platform for later elite LDR performance
[15–18]. Several scientific publications during the last
two decades have described the training characteristics
of world-leading distance runners [17–31]. However,
our understanding of best-practice LDR continues to
evolve, and it is fair to say that positive developments in
modern long-distance training methods have often been
driven by experienced coaches and athletes rather than
sports scientists [32]. Sport scientists have historically
found themselves testing hypotheses regarding why elite
athletes train as they do rather than driving innovation
around the how in the training process. Tightly controlled
and adequately powered laboratory studies that span the
months-to-years timescales associated with maximizing
all the above-mentioned physiological variables impact-
ing LDR performance have been essentially infeasible if
not impossible.
Publicly available coaching philosophies and training
logs of podium contestants from international athlet-
ics championships and world marathon majors consti-
tute a corpus of descriptive training information for the
international long-distance community. It is tempting to
call this corpus of information made available by inter-
national champions a description of training “best prac-
tice,” but some of our colleagues in the sports science
community would reasonably argue that we can only
know that this is results-proven practice, not if it is best
practice. Combining and cross-checking data sources
from available research evidence and results-proven
practice provides a valid point of departure for outlin-
ing current training recommendations and for generating
new hypotheses to be tested in future research [33–36].
is integrative approach also facilitates unique insights
into training characteristics that previously have been
scarcely investigated, altogether allowing a more holistic
picture of “state-of-the-art” LDR training.
e objective of this review is therefore to integrate
scientific and results-proven practice literature regard-
ing the training and development of elite LDR perfor-
mance. Within this context, we will particularly explore
areas where the scientific literature offers limited infor-
mation compared to results-proven training information.
Moreover, the distinctions between training characteris-
tics of the most successful marathon runners and track
runners (i.e., 5000 and 10,000-m specialists) will be high-
lighted since they organize their training year differently.
Although anchored in the standard Olympic running
distances, this review is also relevant for other endurance
sports.
Methodological Considerations
e scientific literature supporting this narrative review
was obtained from PubMed, using varying combinations
of the search terms “endurance,” “long distance,” “mara-
thon,” “training,” “conditioning,” “running,” “elite,” “high
performing,” world-class,” “runners, ” and “athletes.” In
addition, we searched for non-scientific, publicly avail-
able, and English-language training information related
to podium contestants from international champion-
ships (i.e., Olympic Games [OG], World Championships
[WC], and continental championships) and world mara-
thon majors. Most of the training data were obtained
from websites (Runner Universe, Sweat Elite, Running
Science, LetsRun, and RunnersTribe) dedicated to pro-
viding the athletics community an expansive library of
information written by top athletes and coaches. Within
these websites, all relevant training logs and coaching
philosophies were purchased/downloaded and reviewed.
Training information from doping-banned athletes or
coaches were excluded. Moreover, a Google Search for
podium contestants (using athlete name and “training” as
search terms) and LDR books was performed. Although
we cannot guarantee that relevant data have not been
overlooked, the search revealed training logs/informa-
tion from 59 world-leading athletes and 16 coaches of
podium contestants [15, 37–112] (Table1). is informa-
tion ranged from “typical training week” of various meso-
cycles to complete annual training logs. Interpretations
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
Table 1 Sources of results-proven practice
Athletes [Ref.] Personal bests (min) International merits
Said Aouita ♂ [39] 5000 m 12:58.39 (WR)—mile 3:46.76 Olympic gold 1984, WC gold 1987
Stefano Baldini ♂ [69] Marathon 2:07:22—Half marathon 1:00:50 Olympic gold 2004, EC gold 1998 and 2006
Dieter Baumann ♂ [40] 5000 m 12:54.70–3000 m 7:30.50 Olympic gold 1992, EC gold 1994
Kenenisa Bekele ♂ [81] 5000 m 12:37.35 (WR)—10,000 m 26:17.53 ( WR) 3× Olympic gold and 5× WC gold 2003–2009
Joan Benoit ♀ [97] Marathon 2:21:21—Half marathon 1:08:34 Olympic gold 1984
Gelindo Bordin ♂ [70] Marathon 2:10:32—Half marathon 1:03:16 Olympic gold 1988, EC gold 1986 and 1990
Robert de Castella ♂ [82] Marathon 2:07:51 (WR) WC gold 1983
Joshua Cheptegei ♂ [41] 5000 m 12:35.36 (WR)—10,000 m 26:11.00 (WR) Olympic gold and silver 2021, WC gold 2019
Stephen Cherono ♂ [60] 5000 m 12:48.81—3000 m SC 7:53.63 (WR) WC gold 2003 and 2005
Constantina Diță ♀ [83] Marathon 2:21:30—Half marathon 1:08:10 Olympic gold 2008, WC bronze 2005
Brendan Foster ♂ [62] 5000 m 13:14.6—10,000 m 27:30.3 Olympic bronze 1976, EC gold 1974
Haile Gebrselassie ♂ [42] 5000 m 12:39.36 ( WR)—10,000 m 26:22.75 (WR) 2× Olympic gold and 4× WC gold 1995–2000
Sifan Hassan ♀ [49] 1500 m 3:51.95—10,000 m 29:36.67 2× Olympic gold 2021, 2× WC gold 2019
Takayuki Inubushi ♂ [71] Marathon 2:06:57 Former Asian record holder in the marathon
Joyciline Jepkosgei ♀ [85] Marathon 2:18:40—Half marathon 1:04:51 (WR) WC silver 2018 and winner of New York marathon 2019
Steve Jones ♂ [80] Marathon 2:07:13 (WR) Winner of London and New York marathon in the 1980s
Deena Kastor ♀ [87] Marathon 2:19:36—Half marathon 1:07:34 Olympic bronze 2004
Meb Keflezighi ♂ [78] Marathon 2:09:08—10,000 m 27:13.98 Olympic silver 2004
Kip Keino ♂ [61] 5000 m 13:24.2—3000 m 7:39.6 2× Olympic gold and 2× Olympic silver 1968–1972
Bob Kennedy ♂ [43] 5000 m 12:58.21—3000 m 7:30.84 6th in the Olympics (1996) and WC (1997)
Sylvia Kibet ♀ [45] 5000 m 14:31.91—10,000 m 30:47.20 Olympic bronze 2008, WC silver 2009 and 2011
Eliud Kipchoge ♂ [76] Marathon 2:01:39 (WR)—5000 m 12:46.53 Olympic gold 2016 and 2021, WC gold 2003
Florence Kiplagat ♀ [46] Half marathon 1:05:09—10,000 m 30:11.53 WC gold 2009 and 2010 (cross-country and half marathon)
Wilson Kipsang ♂ [96] Marathon 2:03:13—Half marathon 58:59 Olympic bronze 2012, 5 World Marathon Major wins
Abel Kirui ♂ [75] Marathon 2:05:04—Half marathon 1:00:11 WC gold 2009 and 2011, Olympic silver 2012
Daniel Komen ♂ [57] 5000 m 12:39.74 (WR)—3000 m 7:20.67 ( WR) WC gold 1997
Brigid Kosgei ♀ [92] Marathon 2:14:04 (WR)—Half marathon 1:04:49 Olympic silver 2021, 1st in four Marathon majors 2018–2020
Paul M. Kosgei ♀ [93] Half marathon 59:07—10,000 m 27:21.56 WC gold (half marathon) 2002
Ingrid Kristiansen ♀ [63] 10,000 m 30:13.74 ( WR)—Marathon 2:21:06 (WR) WC gold 1987, EC gold 1986
Bernard Lagat ♂ [52] 5000 m 12:53.60—1500 m 3:26.34 2× WC gold 2007, Olympic silver 2004 and bronze 2000
Thomas Longosiwa ♂ [58] 5000 m 12:49.04—3000 m 7:30.09 Olympic bronze 2012
Tegla Loroupe ♀ [86] Marathon 2:20:43—10 000 m 30:32.03 3× WC gold (half marathon) and 2× WC silver 1995–1999
Lisa Martin ♀ [88] Marathon 2:23:51—10,000 m 31:11.72 Olympic silver 1988
Greg Meyer ♂ [79] Marathon 2:09:01—10,000 m 27:53.1 Winner of Boston marathon 1981 and 1983
Geoffrey Mutai ♂ [73] Marathon 2:04:15—Half marathon 58:58 Winner of New York, Boston and Berlin marathon 2011–2013
Imane Merga ♂ [59] 10 000 m 26:48.35—5000 m 12:53.58 WC bronze 2011, WC gold cross-country 2011
Lorraine Moller ♀ [97] Marathon 2:28:17 Olympic bronze 1992
David Moorcroft ♂ [51] 5000 m 13:00.41 ( WR)—3000 m 7:32.79 EC bronce 1978 and 1982
Moses Mosop ♂ [72] Marathon 2:05:03—10,000 m 26:49.55 WC bronze 2005
Craig Mottram ♂ [53] 5000 m 12:55.76—3000 m 7:32.19 WC bronze 2005
Caleb Ndiku ♂ [55] 5000 m 12:59.17—3000 m 7:30.99 WC silver 2015
Yobes Ondieki ♂ [56] 10,000 m 26:58.38 (WR)—5000 m 13:01.82 WC gold 1991
Sonia O’Sullivan ♀ [48] 5000 m 14:41.02—3000 m 8:21.64 WC gold 1995, 3 × EC gold 1994–1998, Olympic silver 2000
Jim Peters ♂ [64] Marathon 2:17:40 Four marathon WRs in the 1950s
Gordon Pirie ♂ [65] 5000 m 13:36.8—3000 m 7:52.8 Olympic silver 1956, EC bronze 1958
Paula Radcliffe ♀ [89] Marathon 2:15:25 ( WR)—10,000 m 30:01.09 WC gold, 3× WC half marathon gold, EC gold 2000–2005
Bill Rodgers ♂ [90] Marathon 2:09:27 (WR)—10,000 m 28:04.42 Multiple winner of Boston and New York marathon 1976–1980
Rodgers Rop ♂ [94] Marathon 2:07:32—Half marathon 1:00:56 Winner of New York and Boston marathon 2002
Molly Seidel [84] Marathon 2:25:13—Half marathon 1:08:29 Olympic bronze 2021
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 4 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
of longitudinal training logs were weighted more heavily
than “short-term” information. Similarly, training infor-
mation from the 50s, 60s, and 70s was mainly used to
provide historical context.
Several limitations to our approach must be acknowl-
edged. Firstly, the inclusion of results-proven training
information can be discussed since it is not based on
peer-reviewed research. However, elite athletes are
systematic in their collection of training “data” and
report their training accurately [23, 113], justifying the
extensive use of training logs as primary or second-
ary information sources in scientific training charac-
teristics studies within LDR [e.g., 17–28]. Secondly,
an initial review of both the scientific literature and
results-proven practice reveals several biases, includ-
ing a substantial male dominance and focus on a few
successful training groups. Additionally, the lack of
a common framework (e.g., intensity zones) and ter-
minology can result in misinterpretations. Moreover,
the included literature cannot be controlled for pos-
sible training prescription–execution differences or
changes in training programs over the years. We are
also aware that many unsuccessful athletes have applied
the same “recipe” as successful runners. Hence, we par-
ticularly focus on common key features across varying
athlete groups. Finally, the widespread use of doping
in international athletics must also be acknowledged
[114, 115]. e outcomes of this review must therefore
be interpreted with these caveats in mind. Sensitive
to these limitations, we still contend that integrat-
ing scientific evidence and results-proven practice is a
strong point of departure for outlining state-of-the-art
training recommendations and for generation of new
hypotheses to be tested in future research.
Overall, the 59 listed athletes have won 51 medals in Olympic Games (22 gold, 15 silver, 11 bronze), 62 medals in World Athletics Championships (26-14-17), 56
medals in continental championships (25-11-17), 25 medals in World Athletics Half Marathon Championships (15-3-1), 52 medals in World Athletics Cross Country
Championships (31-8-9), 16 medals in World Athletics Indoor Championships (10-4-2) and 48 world marathon major wins. Eighteen of the listed athletes are former or
current world record holders
WC world championships, EC European championships, WR former or current world record holder
Table 1 (continued)
Athletes [Ref.] Personal bests (min) International merits
Toshihiko Seko ♂ [91] Marathon 2:08:27—10,000 m 27:42.17 Winner of Boston, London and Chicago marathon in the 1980s
Mubarak H. Shami ♂ [77] Marathon 2:07:19—Half marathon 1:00:47 WC silver 2007, WC half marathon silver 2005
Charlie Spedding ♂ [74] Marathon 2:08:33—10,000 m 28:08.12 Olympic bronze 1984
Ian Stewart ♂ [66] 10,000 m 27:43.03—5000 m 13:22.8 EC gold 1969, Olympic bronze 1972
Paul Tergat ♂ [54] 10,000 m 26:27.85—Marathon 2:04:55 (WR) 5× WC gold cross-country and 2× Olympic silver 1995–1900
Andy Vernon [50] 5000 m 13:11.50—10,000 m 27:42.62 EC silver and bronze 2014
Lasse Viren ♂ [67] 5000 m 13:16.4 (WR)—10,000 m 27:38.35 (WR) 4× Olympic gold 1972–1976, WC bronze 1974
Grethe Waitz ♀ [68] Marathon 2:24:54 (WR)—Half marathon 1:07:50 WC gold 1983 and 5× WC cross-country gold 1978–1983
Susanne Wigene ♀ [47] 10,000 m 30:32.36—5000 m 14:48.53 EC silver 2006
Emil Zatopek [97] 5000 m 13:57.0—10,000 m 28:54.2 4× Olympic golds and 4× EC golds 1948–1954
Coaches [ref.] Successful long-distance athletes Athlete merits
Nic Bideau [20] Craig Mottram WC bronze 2005
Bill Bowerman [21] Steve Prefontaine, Bill Dellinger, Matt Centrowitz Bowerman trained 31 Olympic athletes
Antonio Cabral [22] Alberto Chaica, Fernando Couto Olympic and WC finals
Renato Canova [23, 24] Abel Kirui, Sylvia Kibet, Imane Merga 45 Olympic/WC medals, 15 World Marathon Major wins
Jack Daniels [25] Coached seven athletes to the U.S. Olympic team Olympic finals
John Davis [26] Dick Quax, Lorraine Moller Olympic medals
Brad Hudson [27] Dathan Ritzenhein Olympic finals
Mihaly Igloi [28] Multiple long-distance athletes in the 1950s and 1960s A total of 49 world records
Arthur Lydiard [29–31] Murray Halberg, Barry Magee Olympic medals in the 1960s
Mihaly Iglói [28] Sándor Iharos, Jim Beatty, Bob Schul His athletes achieved 49 WRs in the 1950s and 1960s
Steve Magness [32] Assistant coach and advisor for elite runners Seven top-15 finishes at WC
Kim McDonald [33] Daniel Komen, Stephen Cherono Olympic and WC medals
Terrence Mahon [34] Deena Kastor, Jen Rhines, and Ryan Hall Olympic medals and finals
Gabriele Rosa [35]Moses Tanui, Paul Tergat, Sammy Wanjiru Olympic medals
Joe Vigil [36, 37] Coach for the US Olympic team in 1998 Olympic finals
Chris Wardlaw [38] Steve Moneghetti, Rob De Castella, Craig Mottram WC medals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 5 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
Training Periodization andCompetition
Scheduling
Information about the periodization pattern of LDR
training over the course of a year is scarce in the scientific
literature. Since Arthur Lydiard introduced his periodiza-
tion system in the late 1950s [46–48], leading practition-
ers typically divide the training year (macrocycle) into
distinct, ordered phases (meso- or micro-cycles) with
the explicit goal of peaking for major competitions [15,
21, 26–28, 39–57, 63, 67, 73, 76, 92, 94, 99, 100]. Because
track and marathon specialists organize their training
year and competition schedule quite differently, we will
treat these groups separately in the remainder of this
section.
At least three phases are typically organized within a
macrocycle for track runners: a preparation period, a
competition period, and a transition period. e tran-
sition period begins immediately after the conclusion
of the outdoor competition season, typically consist-
ing of 1–2weeks with rest or recreational training/low-
intensive running [15, 39–44, 49, 53–55, 63, 75, 87, 94],
although some athletes may take ~ 4weeks completely off
[73]. e preparation period is typically broken up into
general and specific preparation. In the general prepara-
tion period, the focus is high volume to build an aerobic
foundation. From the specific preparation period onward,
the focus gradually shifts toward higher volume of spe-
cific race-pace intensity [40–44, 49–56, 72, 73, 76, 92–
94, 112]. Such organization of training has also recently
been verified as highly effective in the research literature
[116] and bears some resemblance with Matveyev’s tradi-
tional periodization model based on the training of suc-
cessful Soviet athletes during the 1950s and 1960s [117].
While the Matveyev model suggested a dramatic shift
from volume focus to intensity focus as the competition
period neared, most track runners maintain a high vol-
ume of subthreshold endurance training throughout the
preparation and competition period and are careful not
to overuse race-pace training or introduce it too early in
their annual cycle. is is somewhat in contrast to the
research literature, where under-performance caused by
overtraining/under-recovery tends to be closely associ-
ated with high volumes and/or densities of training rather
than reduced volume and increased intensity [118].
Some track runners apply double periodization (i.e.,
two peaking phases), consisting of a preparation phase, an
indoor or cross-country season, a new preparation phase,
and finally an outdoor track competition season (typi-
cally lasting 3–4months, starting in May and ending in
September) [56, 57, 68]. However, most world-class track
runners apply single periodization; they may participate
in cross-country or indoor competitions during their
preparation phase but use these competitions as part of
their training. A review of the competition schedule for
the athletes listed in Table1 (based on their most suc-
cessful year in an international championship) revealed
that track runners participated in 9 ± 3 (mean ± SD)
annual competitions, in which 6 ± 3 where outdoor races
prior to OG or WC [119]. About half of the outdoor races
were so-called “under-distances” (1500–3000 m), while
the remaining half consisted of 5- or 10,000-m competi-
tions. None of the analyzed track runners competed in
“over-distances” (e.g., half-marathon) in the 3–4 preced-
ing months leading up to the OG/WC. e last competi-
tion prior to OG/WC was performed 4 ± 2 weeks ahe ad,
and 3 ± 2 additional competitions were performed in the
subsequent 2–4weeks after their most successful cham-
pionship [119].
Marathon runners periodize their training year differ-
ently. e marathon runners listed in Table1 participated
in 6 ± 2 annual competitions in their most successful year,
or ~ 50% fewer races than the track runners. ese com-
petitions were distributed across 2 ± 1 marathons (sepa-
rated by at least 3months), 1 ± 1 half-marathon(s), and
3 ± 3 races over 5–15 km [119]. eir last competition
prior to OG/WC or a World Marathon Major was per-
formed 10 ± 5weeks ahead. Marathon runners typically
apply double periodization centered around spring and
autumn marathons, where the 7–14days following the
marathon competitions are completely training free or
very easy [15, 112]. e 5–6 preceding months leading up
to a marathon are typically divided into general and spe-
cific preparation [40–42, 52–54]. For track runners, the
focus gradually shifts throughout the preparation period
from achieving high total running volume to achieving
more running volume at or near race pace. Progression is
either based on extending the athlete’s accumulated ses-
sion duration at a goal pace [40, 41] or establishing high
intensity volume and then slowly increasing pace [92].
Some marathon runners even apply a reverse linear peri-
odization model, with the highest running volumes reg-
istered during the preceding weeks of the tapering phase
periods as the competition is approaching [112, 120].
e underlying mechanisms for the superiority of spe-
cific periodization models in LDR remain unclear, and
there is no direct evidence enabling us to compare out-
comes across various periodization methodologies [121].
Although scientific comparisons of different training
approaches at a macro-level are challenging to perform,
future studies should aim to verify and test the concepts
developed by the best practitioners over the last decades.
Training Methods
e specific training methods for LDR consist of vary-
ing forms of continuous long runs and interval training
(Table 2). ese training methods bear different labels
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 6 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
among practitioners, mainly depending on the intention/
goal of the training. For example, “easy runs” are some-
what misguidedly termed “recovery runs” or “regen-
eration” by some coaches [40, 41], assuming that their
value is merely to “accelerate recovery” prior to the next
hard session. No scientific studies to date support this
assumption, but the feeling of recovery might be caused
by the low load of such short easy runs, causing very
little interference with the ongoing recovery process.
However, accumulation of high frequency and volume
Table 2 Specific training methods for world-class long-distance runners
The outlined running velocities across the varying methods are based on running at sea level in at terrain. The exemplied sessions evolve throughout the training
year, either in the form of duration, number of repetitions, running velocity and/or recovery time between repetitions (depending on the goal of the session)
Varying denitions of the term “threshold” are used in previously published literature. In this review, we refer to “threshold” as an intensity close to half-marathon pace.
For elite runners, half marathon pace is at the upper end of the intensity range demarcated by LT1 and LT2 and approximates maximal lactate/metabolic steady state.
This appears consistent with how distance runners interpret the term in practice
Training method Description
Continuous running
Warm-up/cooldown, easy run Low-intensive running (typically 3–5 km h−1 slower than marathon pace, i.e., 3:45–4:30 and 4:15–
5:00 min km−1 for men and women), however, the last part of the warm-up may approach marathon
pace predominantly performed on soft surface (grass, woodland, forest paths, etc.). Typical duration
for warm-up/cooldown is 10–30 min. Easy runs are typically applied prior to or after hard training ses-
sions, typically lasting 40–70 min
Long run Low-intensive steady-state running (~ 1–2 km h−1 slower than marathon pace, i.e., 3:05–3:30 and
3:30–4:00 min km−1 for men and women, with marathoners in the faster ends of these ranges). Typical
duration is 45–120 min for track runners and 75–165 min for marathon runners. The running pace is
not necessarily constant throughout the session. This training method is more specific for maratho-
ners than track runners
Uphill run Low-intensive steady-state running uphill (grades 3–6%). Typical duration 20–45 min (6–10 km)
Threshold run (also called tempo run) A sustained run at moderate intensity/half-marathon pace (i.e., 2:50–3:05 and 3:05–3:30 min·km−1
for men and women). Typical duration 20–50 min (7–15 km). The session should not be extremely
fatiguing
Fartlek An unstructured run over varying terrain lasting 30–60 min, where periods of fast running are inter-
mixed with periods of slower running. The pacing variations are determined by the athlete’s feelings
and rhythms, and the terrain
Progressive long runs A commonly used training form used by African runners. The first part of the session resembles an
easy run. After about half the distance, the pace gradually quickens. In the final portion, the pace
increases to half-marathon pace or slightly past it. Typical duration is 45–90 min. Athletes are advised
to slow down when the pace becomes too strenuous
Interval training
Threshold intervals (also called tempo intervals) Intervals of 3–15 min. duration at an intensity around half-marathon pace or slightly faster. Typical
sessions: 10–12 × 1000 m with 1 min. recovery or easy jog between intervals, 6–8 × 1500–2000 m
with 1–2 min. recovery or easy jog between intervals, or 4 × 5000 m with 1000 m easy jog in between.
Recommended total time for elite runners is 30–75 min. Such intervals are advantageous because
they allow the athlete to accumulate more total time than during a continuous threshold run
VO2max intervals Intervals of 2–4 min. duration at 3–10 K pace, with 2–3 min. recovery periods between intervals.
Typical sessions: 4–7 × 800–1000 m or 2 × (6 × 400 m) with 30–60 s and 2–3 min. recovery between
intervals and sets, respectively. Recommended total time for elite runners is ~ 15–20 min. This training
method is more specific for track runners than marathoners
Lactate tolerance training 5000-m runners perform 1–2 weekly training sessions with high levels of lactate in the pre-compe-
tition and competition period. Such intervals typically range from 150 to 600 m at 800–1500 m race
pace and 1–3 min. recoveries. Typical sessions: 10–16 × 200 m with 1 min. recovery between intervals,
or 1–2 × (10 × 400 m) with 60–90 s and 3–5 min. recoveries between intervals and sets, respectively.
Total accumulated distance ranges from 1500 to 8000 m in elite athletes
Hill repeats The main intention is overloading horizontal propulsive muscle groups while reducing ballistic
loading. Typical incline is 5–10%, and repetition duration vary from ~ 30 s to ~ 4 min. depending on
intensity, goal (aerobic intervals, lactate production or tolerance training) and time of season. Typi-
cal sessions: 8–10 × 200 m with easy jog back recoveries, or 6–8 × 800–1000 m with easy jog back
recoveries
Speed work
Sprints 5–15 s runs with near-maximal to maximal effort and full recoveries. These can also be performed
as strides, progressive runs, hill sprints or flying sprints, the latter where the rate of acceleration is
reduced to allow more total distance at higher velocities. The main aim of the session is to develop or
maintain maximal sprinting speed without producing high levels of lactate
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
of low-intensity training (LIT) is considered an impor-
tant stimulus for inducing peripheral adaptations (e.g.,
increased mitochondrial biogenesis and capillary density
of the skeletal muscle) [122]. Accumulated volume of low
intensity running seems to be a characteristic of those
with better running economy [123, 124], and continuous
running is probably most beneficial in stimulating these
adaptations [125]. High volumes of LIT likely promote
better “neural entrainment,” decrease movement variabil-
ity, and reduce energy cost of movement [126].
e historical view is that, compared to a high fre-
quency of LIT bouts, high-intensity training (HIT) stimu-
lates central adaptations to a larger degree (e.g., increased
stroke volume of the heart) [127–129]. However, in well-
trained athletes that are performing a high total volume
of training, further increases in
˙
V
O2max are not consist-
ently observed after periods of increased HIT [130–132].
However, there is growing evidence that HIT better stim-
ulates peripheral adaptations in fast-twitch motor units
via an adenosine monophosphate (AMP) sensitive sign-
aling pathway [133, 134]. In sum, HIT and LIT seem to
elicit a complex suite of overlapping and complementary
adaptations [127, 135–137], justifying the judicious appli-
cation of varying training intensities for performance
development in LDR. Further, it is overly simplistic to
dichotomize the LDR training process into “high volume”
and “high intensity” phases or training bouts. Whether
discussing LIT or HIT, resulting adaptive signaling and
stress responses can only be understood when the con-
text of accumulated duration is added. Bill Bowerman,
co-founder of Nike and US coach at the 1972 Olympics
in Munich where Frank Shorter won the marathon, sum-
marized his training philosophy as follows: 2–3 weekly
interval sessions, a weekly long run, and fill the rest with
as much LIT as you can handle [15, 38]. is simple
training description holds true for the training organi-
zation of most successful long-distance runners during
the last 5decades (see “Intensity distribution” section).
However, while the interval sessions are considered “key”
sessions for track runners, the training organization for
marathoners is most often centered around their weekly
“long runs.”
Several successful long-distance runners have sup-
plemented their sport-specific training with alternative
locomotion modalities, so-called cross-training, includ-
ing swimming, biking, cross-country skiing, and work-
outs on elliptical machines [15, 39, 57, 94]. Arguments
supporting the inclusion of cross-training include injury
prevention and avoidance of training monotony [138,
139]. Because running is associated with lower total
training duration and higher mechanical/ballistic load
compared to other locomotion modalities [140], one
could speculate if cross-training should be performed to
a larger extent among highly trained long-distance run-
ners to provide the same central and peripheral training
stimulus with lower muscular mechanical load. Future
long-term studies should aim to investigate the possible
aerobic training effects of various types of cross-training.
Less specific training forms such as strength, power
and plyometric training in small doses (relative to run-
ning training dosage) are commonly applied by world-
leading long-distance runners [15, 44, 56–58, 60, 65, 70,
93, 94, 97, 104, 111]. Even though these training forms do
not duplicate the holistic running movement, they likely
target specific neuromuscular qualities that underlie
running economy. A review of the results-proven prac-
tice shows that such supplementary training is typically
implemented as a combination of (1) resistance training
using free weights or apparatus (squats, cleans, lunges,
step ups, leg press, etc.) without causing noteworthy
hypertrophy, (2) circuit training with body mass resist-
ance, (3) core strength/stability (e.g., sit-ups and back
exercises), and (4) plyometrics in the form of vertical and/
or horizontal multi-jumps on grass, inclines, stairs, hills
(e.g., bounding, skipping, squat jumps) or jumping over
hurdles [15, 44, 56–58, 60, 65, 70, 93, 94, 97, 104, 111].
Overall, this supplementary training is poorly described
in terms of resistance loading, sets and repetitions, and
caution must therefore be made when drawing conclu-
sions. However, it appears that more strength, power and
plyometric training are implemented during early-to-mid
preparation (about twice a week) compared to the com-
petition period (typically zero or one weekly session)
[15, 44, 56–58, 60, 65, 70, 93, 94, 97, 104, 111]. Several
studies have shown that strength, power and plyometric
training 2–3 times per week can improve running econ-
omy in long-distance runners [11, 29, 141–143]. Paula
Radcliffe improved her vertical jump performance from
29 to 38cm between 1996 and 2003, a period where she
improved her running economy and marathon perfor-
mance considerably [5].
Training Volume
Most world-leading marathon runners train 500–
700 h year−1, while most corresponding track runners
are in the range 450–600h year−1 [15, 40–43, 54, 73, 76,
79, 87, 94]. e relatively broad ranges in training volume
are also present in other endurance sports [132, 144–
153] and are likely explained by individual differences in
mechanical training load tolerance, intensity distribution,
risk willingness, training age/career stage, application of
cross-training, genetics and perhaps also psychological
factors. e present training volume observations are in
line with other studies of top-class long- and middle-dis-
tance athletes [19–21, 27, 28, 34], but a larger proportion
of middle-distance training is devoted to strength, power,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 8 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
and plyometric training (particularly in 800-m runners)
[34]. Successful endurance athletes in cross-country ski-
ing, biathlon, cycling, triathlon, swimming, and row-
ing train considerably more (800–1200h per year) [132,
144–153]. is is likely explained by the fact that LDR is
a weight-bearing exercise where rapid plyometric muscle
actions put high loads on muscles and tendons during
each step. Accordingly, both total training volume and
the duration of low-intensity sessions are relatively low
for LDR compared to the other endurance sports [140].
To obtain a relatively high training volume, world-leading
athletes seem to compensate by running twice a day most
of the week [40, 41, 56–76, 79, 83–112].
Many long-distance runners accumulate much of their
running kilometers on dirt roads/forest paths instead of
paved roads to reduce mechanical loading and maximize
training volume. is indicates that the running move-
ment per se is not the main contributor to limited train-
ing tolerance, but rather the leg-surface interaction and
resulting forces [140]. Running surface is a specific aspect
of training periodization for marathoners. Because major
marathons are performed exclusively on hard, paved
roads, marathon specialists will build in continuous runs
of increasing duration on asphalt or similar hard surfaces
as they specifically prepare for these events [15, 41].
A discussion of training volume and the constraints
created by mechanical interactions between runner and
running surface would be incomplete without mention-
ing running shoes. Recent developments on the foot-
wear front have received massive attention in the LDR
community. e “super-shoe” was introduced to road
running in 2016 and to track running in 2019, chronolog-
ically coincident with a wave of LDR records. ese shoes
are now subject to strict guidelines and testing [154]. e
footwear features behind these performance improve-
ments include shoe weight, material composition, heel
thickness, and bending stiffness, altogether improv-
ing running economy (and thereby performance) sig-
nificantly [155–158]. Importantly in the context of LDR
training, anecdotal evidence (i.e., our discussions with
national-level distance runners) also suggests less muscle
soreness and increased training tolerance with the recent
shoe technology, altogether facilitating slightly increased
running volume. Future studies should investigate how
the current rapid development in shoe technology will
affect LDR training characteristics.
While most scientific studies tend to only report
training volume across macro- and mesocycles [e.g.,
17, 21, 27, 28], the results-proven practice describes
more detailed fluctuations throughout the training year.
Because most injuries are attributed to rapid and exces-
sive increases in training load [159, 160], elite performers
increase the total running volume gradually during the
initial 8–12weeks of the macrocycle. e initial training
week is performed with ~ 40–60% of peak weekly run-
ning volume, increasing by ~ 5–15 km each week until
maximal volume is reached [62, 63, 90, 94, 95, 100, 103].
is volume progression is mainly achieved by increasing
training frequency in the initial phase, then subsequently
raised further by lengthening individual training sessions.
Variations in training volume progression rate seem to
depend on training experience and individual predis-
positions. e younger the training age, and the longer
the transition period, the more careful progression from
early to mid-preparation within the macrocycle.
Typical weekly running volume in the mid-preparation
period is ~ 160–220km for marathon runners [15, 85–
107, 111, 112] and 130–190km for track runners [56–76,
112], distributed across 11–14 sessions. Peak weekly vol-
ume can reach 20–30km higher values for both groups,
but only for short periods (2–3 weeks) of time. ese
wide ranges must be interpreted in the context of run-
ning intensity. Some marathon runners cover “only” 130–
150km wk−1; however, a considerably higher proportion
of their volume (25–30%) is at or near marathon race
pace, compared to others who cover 220–240km wk−1,
with only 15–20% at or near marathon pace [85–107,
112]. Training volume in elite LDR increases ≤ 8–10%
annually in their late teens and early 20s, before slightly
declining and stabilizing in their mid-20s [17, 18, 49,
53, 54]. e difference in volume between marathon
and track runners is mainly explained by fewer running
kilometers per session for track runners, as training fre-
quency is equal for both groups. As shown in Table 2,
some long-run sessions for marathon runners may last
up to 60min longer compared to track runners.
One could argue that the ~ 10% slower running veloc-
ity in women [161] should be compensated for with
less covered distance to ensure the same running dura-
tion between sexes. A counterargument is that men and
women should apply equal distances during practice
because they compete in the same disciplines [40, 41]. We
observed no sex differences in distance covered among
the track runners in this study. e analyzed female mar-
athon runners covered ~ 5% (~ 10km) less distance but
trained 30–40min wk−1 longer than males [85–107]. We
can only speculate if the longer training duration is to
compensate for the less covered distance.
Overall, total running volume has remained rela-
tively constant among world-leading long-distance
runners since the 1950–1960s [15, 46–48, 78, 80–82].
Some athletes have applied considerably higher volumes
(≥ 300 km wk−1), seemingly experiencing more chal-
lenges related to injury management and fatigue [15].
Based upon both biomechanical and physiological fac-
tors, it is tempting to speculate that lighter athletes
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
Table 3 Intensity scale for long-distance runners
BLa = typical blood lactate (normative blood lactate concentration values based on red-cell lysed blood); HR = typical heart rate; VO2max = maximal oxygen consumption; RPE = rating of perceived exertion;
AWD = typical accumulated work duration; Int. = interval; Rec. = typical recovery time (active or passive) between repetitions; LIT = low-intensity training; MIT = moderate-intensity training; HIT = high-intensity training
a Warm-up is typically performed in zone 1–3, although with shorter duration, while cooldowns are typically performed in zone 1–2
b Progressive runs are typically performed in zone 1–3
c The dierence between half-marathon and marathon speed is very small on an absolute scale among world-class long-distance runners. Hence, half-marathon pace represents the upper part of zone 3, while marathon
pace represents the lower part of the same zone. It is also important to note that physiological measures (and RPE) normally “drift” upward considerably during a competition, reecting a growing mismatch between
internal and external load. For example, heart rate may increase ~ 20 beats per minute (and cross into “zone 4 or 5”) during the latter half of a marathon race. Hence, the stated values are meant as training guidelines.
Finally, individual race pace evolves throughout the training year. For example, marathon pace may be 10–20s slower per kilometer during early preparation period, meaning similar physiological stress when running at
slower paces
Scale BLa HR VO2max RPE Pace reference AWD Int. time Rec Typical training methods
6-zone 3-zone mmol·L−1% max % 6–20 min·session−1min min
7 HIT n/a n/a n/a n/a 60–400 m 1–3 < 0:20 1–3 Maximal or progressive sprints, hill sprints
6 HIT > 8.0 n/a n/a 18–20 800–1500 m 5–20 0:30–2:00 0:30–3 Lactate tolerance training, hill repetitions
5 HIT 5.0–8.0 > 93 90–99 18–20 1500–5000 m 15–30 0:30–3 0:30–5 VO2max intervals, competitions, hill repetitions
4 HIT 3.5–5.0 88–92 85–89 16–18 10,000 m 20–35 3–6 1–5 VO2max intervals, hill repetitions, competitions
3 MIT 2.0–3.5 83–87 80–84 14–16 (Half) marathonb30–60 6–20 1–3 Threshold runs/intervals, fartlek, competitions
2 LIT 1.0–2.0 73–82 70–79 12–14 n/a 20–150 n/a n/a Long runs, uphill runs, progressive runsc
1 LIT < 1.0 60–72 55–69 9–12 n/a 20–150 n/a n/a Warm-up/cooldowna, easy long runs
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 10 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
tolerate higher running volumes over time compared to
their heavier counterparts. Assuming runners spend half
the step cycle time on the ground, then the vertical forces
exerted upon the ground must be twice the athlete’s body
weight. Hence, the higher the body weight, the higher the
impact forces during the landing phase. Moreover, slim
runners possess superior thermodynamical conditions,
as their sweat surface area to heat producing volume
ratio increases with decreasing body size [162].
Intensity Zones
While training volume in endurance sports is straight-
forward to quantify, training intensity quantification
is more complicated. e preponderance of scientific
and results-proven practice recommends that intensity
scales/zones/domains in LDR should be based on physi-
ological parameters (e.g., heart rate ranges, ventilatory/
lactate thresholds), external work rates (running pace
or types of training), or perceived exertion [17, 18, 21,
22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 40–42, 54, 112, 135, 163–165], but no
consensus has so far been established. We would argue
that this lack of consensus is consistent with an uncom-
fortable truth; no single intensity parameter performs
satisfactorily in isolation as an intensity guide due to (1)
intensity–duration interactions and uncoupling of inter-
nal and external workload, (2) individual and day-to-day
variation, and (3) strain responses that can carry over
from preceding workouts and transiently disrupt these
relationships [13, 166, 167]. Consequently, combining
external load, internal load, and perception regularly dur-
ing training provides a triangulation of intensity charac-
teristics that is probably complimentary and informative.
Whatever intensity parameter that is chosen, describing
and comparing training characteristics requires a com-
mon intensity scale. To address this, we have developed
both a 3- and 7-zone intensity model (Table 3). ese
are mainly anchored around race pace and reflect the
practices of world-leading track and marathon runners.
In this way, we can analyze their training logs in more
detail. Compared to our previously developed intensity
scale for 800/1500-m specialists [34], this version was
deemed more representative because (1) lactate produc-
tion sessions are rarely performed in LDR, (2) long-dis-
tance runners present lower blood lactate values within
each intensity zone, and (3) long-distance runners exhibit
less pronounced velocity declines with increasing train-
ing/repetition duration. Admittedly, presenting two “cus-
tomized” intensity scales when there is overlap among
middle- and long-distance performers may be provoca-
tive, but we argue that the present scale better reflects
the nature of long-distance training. Indeed, standard-
ized intensity zone systems are imperfect tools and have
been criticized for several reasons [34, 135, 168, 169].
However, the potential error sources seem to be out-
weighed by the improved communication between coach
and athlete that a common scale facilitates [34, 135]. e
intensity scale outlined here (Table3) can be used as a
framework for both scientist and practitioners involved
in LDR.
Endurance athletes employ varying methods of inten-
sity distribution quantification. ese are anchored
around blood lactate ranges, running pace references,
“time-in-zone” heart rate analysis calibrated against pre-
liminary threshold testing, or the “session goal” approach
where each training session is nominally allocated to an
intensity zone based on the intensity of the main work-
out part [112, 135, 164, 170]. e method of intensity
quantification can affect the calculation of the intensity
distribution [25, 168]. Based on the nature of available
results-proven practice [15, 37–112], the time/distance-
in-zone approach was applied in this review to assess the
intensity distribution for the analyzed running sessions.
Intensity Distribution
e description of training intensity distribution in pre-
vious studies of long-distance runners can mainly be
categorized into the following three models: (1) e
pyramidal model, characterized by a large volume of
LIT combined with a small volume of moderate-inten-
sity training (MIT) and an even smaller volume of HIT,
(2) the polarized model, where the same large volume
of LIT is combined with less MIT and more HIT, and
(3) the threshold model, where a relatively larger pro-
portion of training is performed in the threshold inten-
sity range demarcated by lactate/ventilatory thresholds
1 (LT1/VT1) and 2 LT2/VT2 [17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 112,
135, 163, 164, 170–172]. Indeed, these intensity distribu-
tion definitions have been argued to be vague and inad-
equate, forming a basis for misinterpretations [173, 174].
While previous studies have tended to focus on what
model is most optimal for performance based on aggre-
gated data for the entire training year [17, 18, 21, 25, 26,
28], the results-proven practice shows that athletes adjust
intensity distribution modestly across meso- and micro-
cycles (see later paragraphs in this section). It should also
be noted that both MIT- and HIT-training sessions are
psychologically and physiologically demanding, requir-
ing increased recovery time between blocks or sessions
compared to training at lower intensity. In this context,
training at “moderate” intensity is relatively more meta-
bolically demanding in highly trained endurance athletes
because they can run at a very high percentage of their
v
˙
V
O2max during MIT-sessions [6, 175].
e most consistent training intensity characteristic
of elite distance runners is that most of the running dis-
tance (≥ 80%) is performed at low intensity throughout
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 11 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
the training year (corresponding to zone 1 and 2 in our
7-zone scale) [15, 37–112], in line with previous research
[15, 17–22, 25–28, 112, 135, 164, 168–172]. Most of this
training is in turn executed in zone 1, and the duration
of the easy runs is very stable throughout the training
year. Because zone 2 is closer to marathon pace, a higher
proportion of zone 2 is applied by marathon specialists,
particularly during the specific preparation period [40,
41, 85–97, 100]. Weekly long runs are one of the most
important sessions for marathon runners in this period
[40, 41], typically performed as 30–40 km runs slightly
below marathon pace. In contrast, an increasingly higher
proportion of LIT is performed in zone 1 for track run-
ners as the competition season approaches [41, 72–76].
Training in zone 3 (in the 6-zone scale) represents
5–15% of the total running volume in elite long-distance
runners [15, 37–112]. However, this proportion can
vary across meso- and micro-cycles. ere is a trend
among marathon runners toward performing a higher
proportion of zone-3 training as the major competition
approaches [40, 41, 85–97, 100]. Track runners seem to
follow an opposite organization, as the highest amount of
zone-3 training is performed in the early-to-mid prepara-
tion period, before decreasing when the competition sea-
son is nearing [41, 60, 72–76]. According to Casado etal.
[17, 18], tempo runs (continuous running in zone 2–3 in
our model) account for ~ 20% of the total annual running
volume in world-class Kenyan long-distance runners,
corresponding well with observations of Billat etal. [20]
and data compiled here.
Interval training in zone 4–5 also represents 5–15% of
the total running volume, but this proportion is inversely
related to zone 3-training. at is, marathon runners
perform most training in zones 4–5 in the early-to-mid
preparation period before replacing such training with
more extensive bouts of zone-3 and upper end of zone-2
training as the major competition approaches [40, 41,
85–97, 100]. In contrast, track runners increase the pro-
portion of zone 4–5 training at the expense of zone 3 as
the competition season approaches [41, 60, 72–76].
During the pre-competition and competition period,
most world-class 5000-m runners perform 1–2 weekly
interval training sessions in zone 6 or in combination
with zone 5 [56, 68, 72–76]. ese runners may perform
10–20km weekly in zone 5–6 between May and August,
while most marathoners avoid training with such high
amounts of lactic/glycolytic energy release [40, 41, 85–
97, 100].
Distance runners perform sprint training (zone 7 in
our model) regularly during the annual cycle, although
this accounts for less than 1% of the total running volume
[15, 37, 40, 42–44, 49, 51, 54–60, 66, 68–76, 85, 88, 90,
91, 93, 94, 97, 102, 103, 105, 109–111]. Sprint training
is considered a supplement rather than the main goal
of separate training sessions and is typically performed
during the last part of the warm-up or after easy long
runs. It is generally assumed that sprint training should
be performed without accumulation of fatigue (often
indicated by increasing levels of blood lactate). e dis-
tances are most commonly in the range 60–120m, with
sufficient recovery between each repetition. Most sprint
runs are performed with low to moderate rate of accel-
eration (i.e., strides, progressive runs, hills sprints, or fly-
ing sprints), likely because the energy demands during
maximal acceleration greatly exceed those at peak veloc-
ity [176]. However, high amounts of endurance training
limit the development of muscular power [177, 178], and
it is unrealistic to expect significant sprint performance
development in elite long-distance runners. Hence, sprint
training is mainly performed to minimize the negative
impact of aerobic conditioning on maximal sprint speed.
In summary, the annual training intensity distribution
is very similar for track runners and marathon specialists,
as low intensity volume dominates. However, substan-
tial differences may be present within each mesocycle.
Both groups increase the volume of race-pace running
as the main competition approaches. Table4 contrasts
case study examples of typical training weeks across the
annual cycle for a track runner and marathon specialist.
Tapering
Tapering in elite sports refers to the marked reduction
of total training load prior to important competition(s).
is is a short-term balancing act, as tapering strategies
are intended to decrease the cumulative effects of fatigue
while maintaining fitness [179, 180]. Because tapering
strategies and outcomes are heavily dependent on the
preceding training load, it is often challenging to separate
tapering from periodization and training programming
in general. According to previous research, a successful
taper may enhance competition performance in well-
trained endurance athletes by ~ 1–3% [179–182]. How-
ever, this claim is challenging to verify in elite LDR, as
numerous confounding external variables (race tactics/
pacing, weather conditions, competitors, etc.) influence
performance in many important competitions where
runners compete for medals and not for the best possible
time [183–185]. It has also been shown that outstanding
performances across a 3-month competition period can
be achieved, without tapering for a specific competition,
by merely reducing the training substantially in the last
4–5days prior to each competition [73].
In cases where major competitions are arranged in
warm and/or humid cities, and perhaps also many
time zones away from the athletes’ regular loca-
tion, tapering is integrated with time-, heat-, and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 12 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
Table 4 Case study examples of training weeks for a marathon specialist and a track runner
Their training was performed in hilly terrain on uneven surface at 2000–2500m altitude. The training data of Thomas Longosiwa were provided by his coach Renato
Canova, while the training data of Eliud Kipchoge are publicly available [76]
M morning session, E evening session, z training zone (see this table)
Day Eliud Kipchoge (gold medalist in Rio de Janeiro 2016 and Tokyo 2021 Olympics)
General preparation period Specic preparation period
Mon M: 16–21 km, average pace 3:50–4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 21 km, average pace 3:20 min·km−1 (zone 2)
E: 8–12 km, average pace 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace 4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Tue M: 10–15 min warm-up (~ 3 km) (zone 1). 12–15 km interval training
on a dirt track (e.g., 15 × 1000 m at 2:50–2:55 min·km−1 (zone 4) with
90 s rest
M: 3 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 1200 m in 3:25 min (zone
3), 5 × 1 km in 2:55 min (zone 3) with 90 s rest, 3 × 300 m in 42–40 s
(zone 5) with 60 s rest, 2 × 200 m in 27 s (zone 5) with 60 s rest. 3 km
cooldown in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 8–10 km, average pace 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: Rest
Wed M: 16–21 km, average pace 3:50–4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 18 km, average pace 3:55–4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 8–12 km, 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 11 km, average pace 4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Thu M: 30 or 40 km long run, average pace 3:00–3:25 min·km−1 (zone 2–3),
depending on terrain M: 40 km tempo run (tough and muddy course), average
pace ~ 3:40 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 8–12 km, average pace 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: Rest
Fri M: 16–21 km, average pace 3:50–4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 18 km, average pace 3:50–3:55 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 8–12 km, 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace ~ 3:55 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Sat M: 50–65 min fartlek (zone 1–3), either with long intervals (e.g.,
4 × 10 min with 2 min rest) or short intervals (e.g., 25 × 1 min with
1 min rest)
M: 85 min fartlek including 10 min warm-up at 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1),
30 × 1 min at pace 2:45 min·km−1 (zone 4) with 1 min easy jog (zone 1)
in between, 15 min cooldown (zone 1)
E: 8–12 km, 4:30–5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: Rest
Sun M: 18–22 km, average pace 3:50–4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 20 km, average pace ~ 3:50 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: Rest E: Rest
Weekly total of 200–220 km (82–84% LIT, 9–10% MIT, 7–8% HIT) Weekly total of ~ 185 km (~ 91% LIT, ~ 3% MIT, ~ 6% HIT)
Day Thomas Longosiwa (5000-m bronze medalist in London 2012 Olympics)
General preparation period Competition period
Mon M: 15 km, average pace 4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 20 km, average pace 3:45–3:50 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 11 km, average pace 4:30 min·km−1 (zone 1). 10 × 80 m sprint uphill
(zone 6) E: 4 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 8 × 300 m steep uphill
(zone 5)
Tue M: 21 km, average pace 3:30 min·km−1 (zone 1–2) M: 4 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 19 km fartlek with
7 km average pace 2:52 min·km−1 (zone 3), 6 km with average pace
3:24 min·km−1 (zone 2), and 6 km with average pace 3:50 min·km−1
(zone 1)
E: 11 km, average pace 4:30 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Wed M: 4 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 5 × 1000 m in 2:52 min
(zone 4), 6 × 600 m in 1:38 min (zone 5), 7 × 300 m in 46 s (zone 5),
3000 m in 9:00 min (zone 3)
M: 18 km, average pace 4:10 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 8 km, average pace 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace 4:40 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Thu M: 17 km, average pace 4:05–4:10 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 4 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 5 × 2000 m with alter-
nating speed every 400 m, where a total of 6 km was performed with
average pace 2:35–2:45 min·km−1 (zone 5). The remaining 4 km was
performed with average pace 3:05–3:10 min·km−1 (zone 3)
E: 11 km, average pace 4:30 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Fri M: 15 km, average pace 4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: 18 km, average pace 3:40–3:45 min·km−1 (zone 1)
E: 15 km, average pace 4:00 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 10 km, average pace 4:40 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Sat M: 4 km warm-up, average pace 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 12 km, average
pace 3:06 min·km−1 (zone 3) M: 4 km warm-up in 5:00 min·km−1 (zone 1). 3 × (5 × 600 m) in
1:33–1:34 min (zone 5)
E: 11 km, average pace 4:30 min·km−1 (zone 1) E: 12 km, average pace 4:10 min·km−1 (zone 1)
Sun M: 24 km, average pace 3:50 min·km−1 (zone 1) M: Rest
E: Rest E: Rest
Weekly total of 193 km (86% LIT, 8% MIT, 6% HIT) Weekly total of 163 km (85% LIT, 7% MIT, 8% HIT)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 13 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
humidity-acclimatization processes. For more details
related to these topics, we refer readers to previously
published reviews [186–188].
e general scientific guidelines for effective taper-
ing in endurance sports include a 2- to 3-week period
with 40–60% reduction in training volume adopting
a progressive nonlinear format, while training inten-
sity and frequency are maintained [179–182]. However,
most long-distance runners do not report a substantial
decrease in training volume until the last 7–10days prior
to competition [61, 69, 74, 75, 85–95, 97]. Table5 pre-
sents training volume distribution across intensity zones
for 10 world-class marathon runners during the count-
down to a major competition.
A review of the competition schedule for the athletes
listed in Table1 (based on their most successful year in
an international championship) revealed that the last
competition was performed 10 ± 5 and 4 ± 2 weeks prior
to the season’s main competition for marathon run-
ners and track runners, respectively [119]. Arrival at the
championship destination typically occurs 7–10 days
ahead of competition [39, 54, 57, 94]. e last intensive
session (e.g., 10 × 200m at race pace with optional recov-
eries) is typically performed 3–5days ahead of the main
championship event [40, 61, 74, 75, 100].
Altitude Training
e LDR community became aware of the impact of
altitude on endurance performance in the late 1960s
and particularly in connection with the 1968 Olym-
pics in Mexico City (2300m above sea level). Clearly,
sufficient altitude acclimatization ahead of endur-
ance competitions at altitudes 1000m above sea level
is required to perform optimally [189, 190]. How-
ever, many athletes additionally use longer sojourns
at altitude to enhance aerobic endurance capacity and
thereby performance at sea level, mainly with the goal
of increasing red blood cell mass [191]. Since 1968,
> 90% of all OG/WC medals from the 800m through
the marathon have been won by athletes who have lived
or systematically trained at altitude [9, 15, 103].
e potential effect of altitude training is influenced
by the hypoxic dose, which is a function of the dura-
tion of the stay and the altitude [192]. Most world-
class African runners apply the "live high—train high”
model, as they live and carry out LIT-, MIT-, and HIT-
sessions relatively high (2000–2500m above sea level)
[9]. Athletes from lowlands typically perform relatively
long altitude camps during the preparation period and
one camp 2–4weeks prior to the most important com-
petition, with most emphasis on LIT and MIT-sessions
[57, 85, 100, 103, 111]. However, the optimal time of
return from altitude camps to lowland competition is
disputed [193] and warrants further investigations. e
ability to train effectively at altitude may be one feature
that distinguishes African runners from their European,
American, and Asian competitors [9]. In all cases, suc-
cessful use of altitude training by the best long-distance
runners is characterized by individualized, well-bal-
anced training load and optimized recovery strategies
through adequate sleep, rest and nutritional factors as
described in detail elsewhere [e.g., 19, 194].
It has been questioned whether altitude training has
positive effects on endurance capacity and sea-level
performance beyond the effects achieved with similar
training performed at sea level. Here, high-quality sci-
entific evidence is limited, and researchers interpret
the current scientific data differently [195, 196]. Alti-
tude training research is methodologically demanding
due to the difficulty of standardizing the intervention,
including control groups, and controlling other psycho-
logical and physiological confounders during altitude
training. Although research provides limited support
for a positive effect of altitude training on sea-level
performance in endurance sports, these studies remain
scarce and underpowered to detect the small adapta-
tions that may be of importance in elite LDR. is is
illustrated through the large individual differences in
blood responses documented in connection with alti-
tude training [197]. Consequently, a nuanced view on
altitude training is warranted.
Table 5 Training volume across intensity zones for 10 world-
class marathon runners during the countdown to a major
competition
All data are stated in km (mean ± SD)
a Major competition not included. Zone 6–7 training accounted for < 0.5km
on average in these weeks. The data are collected from training logs from
the following athletes (and competitions): Stefano Baldini (Olympic gold in
Athens 2004 with 2:10:55), Kenenisa Bekele (winner of Berlin Marathon 2019
with2:01:41), Gelindo Bordin (Olympic gold in Seoul 1988 with 2:10:32), Takayuki
Inubushi (2nd in Berlin Marathon 1999 with 2:06:57), Meb Keezighi (winner of
Boston Marathon 2014 with 2:08:37), Eliud Kipchoge (winner of Berlin Marathon
2017 with 2:03:32), Abel Kirui (World Championship gold in Daegu 2011 with
2:07:37), Moses Mosop (2nd in Boston Marathon 2011 with 2:03:06), Georey
Mutai (winner of New York Marathon 2011 with 2:05:05), Mubarak Hassan Shami
(winner of Paris Marathon 2007 with 2:07:17)
Week 5 Week 4 Week 3 Week 2 Week 1a
Total volume 191 ± 29 184 ± 24 188 ± 17 170 ± 30 116 ± 27
Zone 1 150 ± 29 138 ± 22 150 ± 22 134 ± 30 98 ± 22
Zone 2 18 ± 15 27 ± 15 11 ± 13 13 ± 13 5 ± 5
Zone 3 17 ± 8 12 ± 9 21 ± 11 16 ± 15 10 ± 12
Zone 4 3 ± 7 7 ± 7 5 ± 6 5 ± 4 2 ± 2
Zone 5 2 ± 4 1 ± 2 0 ± 1 2 ± 4 2 ± 2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 14 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
Conclusions
is review integrates the scientific literature and
results-proven practice regarding the training and
development of world-class LDR performance. Herein,
we have outlined a framework for specific character-
istics (i.e., training methods, volume, and intensity)
and identified the training organization differences
between track runners and marathon specialists. Mar-
athon and track runners participate in 6 ± 2 and 9 ± 3
(mean ± SD) annual competitions, respectively. Typical
weekly running volume in the mid-preparation period
is in the range 160–220km for marathon runners and
130–190 km for track runners. ese differences are
mainly explained by fewer running kilometers for each
session for track runners, as training frequency (11–14
sessions per week) is equal for both groups. Moreo-
ver, ≥ 80% of total running distance is performed at
low intensity throughout the training year. In the gen-
eral preparation period, the focus is to build an aero-
bic foundation by a large total running volume. From
the specific preparation period onward, the volume
of race-pace running increases as the main competi-
tion approaches. Hence, training intensity distribution
models vary across mesocycles and differ between mar-
athon and track runners. While the African runners
live and train at high altitude (2000–2500m above sea
level), most lowland athletes apply relatively long alti-
tude camps during the preparation period. e tapering
process starts 7–10days prior to the main competition,
typically preceded by a 2–4-week altitude camp. Over-
all, this review offers novel insights into areas of LDR
training that formerly have been scarcely studied in the
scientific literature, providing a point of departure for
future studies and may serve as a position statement
related to the training and development in the Olympic
long-distance events.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Renato Canova, Michele Zanini, Sondre Nordstad
Moen, and Kristian Ulriksen for their thoughtful and valuable inputs and con-
tributions during a process of “stress testing” our interpretation of elite training
practice with top practitioners.
Authors’ Contributions
TH, ØS and ET planned the review. TH and ET retrieved the relevant literature.
All authors (TH, SS, ØS, EE, and ET ) were engaged in drafting and revising the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Availability of Data and Materials
All data and materials support the published claims and comply with field
standards.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1 School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, PB 1190, Sentrum,
0107 Oslo, Norway. 2 Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science,
Centre for Elite Sports Research, Norwegian University of Science and Tech-
nology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. 3 School of Sport Sciences, UiT The Arctic
University of Norway of Health Sciences, Tromsø, Norway. 4 Faculty of Health
and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, PB 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.
Received: 18 December 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2022
References
1. Costill DL. The relationship between selected physiological vari-
ables and distance running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
1967;7:61–6.
2. Costill DL. Metabolic responses during distance running. J Appl Physiol.
1970;28:251–5.
3. Joyner MJ. Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of
physiological factors. J Appl Physiol. 1991;70:683–7.
4. Joyner M, Coyle EF. Endurance performances: the physiology of cham-
pions. J Physiol. 2008;586:35–44.
5. Jones AM. The physiology of the world record holder for the women’s
marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2006;1:101–16.
6. Jones AM, Kirby BS, Clark IE, Rice HM, Fulkerson E, Wylie LJ, Wilkerson DP,
Vanhatalo A, Wilkins BW. Physiological demands of running at 2-hour
marathon race pace. J Appl Physiol. 2021;130:369–79.
7. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Running economy: measurement, norms, and
determining factors. Sports Med Open. 2015;1:8.
8. Larsen HB, Sheel AW. The Kenyan runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2015;25:110–8.
9. Wilber RL, Pitsiladis YP. Kenyan and Ethiopian distance runners: What
makes them so good? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:92–102.
10. Joyner MJ, Hunter SK, Lucia A, Jones AM. Physiology and fast mara-
thons. J Appl Physiol. 2020;128:1065–8.
11. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Strategies to improve running economy. Sports
Med. 2015;45:37–56.
12. Kirby BS, Winn BJ, Wilkins BW, Jones AM. Interaction of exercise bioener-
getics with pacing behavior predicts track distance running perfor-
mance. J Appl Physiol. 2021;131:1532–42.
13. Maunder E, Seiler S, Mildenhall MJ, Kilding AE, Plews DJ. The Impor-
tance of “durability” in the physiological profiling of endurance athletes.
Sports Med. 2021;51:1619–28.
14. Clark IE, Vanhatalo A, Thompson C, Joseph C, Black MI, Blackwell JR,
et al. Dynamics of the power-duration relationship during prolonged
endurance exercise and influence of carbohydrate ingestion. J Appl
Physiol. 2019;127:726–36.
15. Sandrock M. Running with the legends: training and racing insights
from 21 great runners. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1996.
16. Tjelta LI. Three Norwegian brothers all European 1500 m champions:
What is the secret? Int J Sport Sci Coach. 2019;14:694–700.
17. Casado A, Hanley B, Santos-Concejero J, Ruiz-Pérez LM. World-class
long-distance running performances are best predicted by volume of
easy runs and deliberate practice of short-interval and tempo runs. J
Strength Cond Res. 2019 [Online ahead of print].
18. Casado A, Hanley B, Ruiz-Pérez LM. Deliberate practice in training dif-
ferentiates the best Kenyan and Spanish long-distance runners. Eur J
Sport Sci. 2020;20:887–95.
19. Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP. Physical and
training characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2001;33:2089–97.
20. Billat V, Lepretre PM, Heugas AM, Laurence MH, Salim D, Koralsztein
JP. Training and bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female
Kenyan runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:297–304.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 15 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
21. Tjelta LI. The training of international level distance runners. Int J Sports
Sci Coach. 2016;11:122–34.
22. Stellingwerff T. Case study: nutrition and training periodization in three
elite marathon runners. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2012;22:392–400.
23. Spilsbury KL, Fudge BW, Ingham SA, Faulkner SH, Nimmo MA. Taper-
ing strategies in elite British endurance runners. Eur J Sport Sci.
2015;15:367–73.
24. Lucia A, Esteve-Lanao J, Oliván J, Gómez-Gallego F, San Juan AF, Santi-
ago C, Pérez M, Chamorro-Viña C, Foster C. Physiological characteristics
of the best Eritrean runners-exceptional running economy. Appl Physiol
Nutr Metab. 2006;31:530–40.
25. Kenneally M, Casado A, Gomez-Ezeiza J, Santos-Concejero J. Training
intensity distribution analysis by race pace vs. physiological approach
in world-class middle- and long-distance runners. Eur J Sport Sci.
2020;20:1–8.
26. Kenneally M, Casado A, Gomez-Ezeiza J, Santos-Concejero J. Training
characteristics of a World Championship 5000-m finalist and multiple
continental record holder over the year leading to a World Champion-
ship final. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021. [Online ahead of print]
27. Tjelta LI, Tønnessen E, Enoksen E. Case study of the training of nine
times New York marathon winner Grete Waitz. Int J Sports Sci Coach.
2014;9:139–57.
28. Enoksen E, Tjelta AR, Tjelta LI. Distribution of training volume and inten-
sity of elite male and female track and marathon runners. Int J Sports
Sci Coach. 2011;6:273–93.
29. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Santos-Concejero J, Grivas GV. Effects of
strength training on running economy in highly trained runners: a sys-
tematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials. J Strength Cond
Res. 2016;30:2361–8.
30. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: a scientific and empirical
practice. Special recommendations for middle- and long-distance run-
ning. Part I: aerobic interval training. Sports Med. 2001;31:13–31.
31. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: a scientific and empirical
practice. Special recommendations for middle- and long-distance run-
ning. Part II: anaerobic interval training. Sports Med. 2001;31:75–90.
32. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, Jones AM. Training to enhance the physi-
ological determinants of long-distance running performance: Can valid
recommendations be given to runners and coaches based on current
scientific knowledge? Sports Med. 2007;37:857–80.
33. Haugen T, Seiler S, Sandbakk Ø, Tønnessen E. The training and develop-
ment of elite sprint performance: an integration of scientific and best
practice literature. Sports Med Open. 2019;5:44.
34. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Enoksen E, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Crossing the
golden training divide: the science and practice of training world-class
800- and 1500-m runners. Sports Med. 2021;51:1835–54.
35. Haugen T. Key success factors for merging sport science and best
practice. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;15:297.
36. Haugen T. Best-practice coaches: an untapped resource in sport-
science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16:1215–6.
37. Nic Bideau. Coaching middle and long distance runners: A commen-
tary. https:// beaco nhill strid ers. co. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2015/ 05/M-
L- Dista nce- Train ing- Nic- Bideau. pdf. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
38. Bowerman B. High performance training for track and field. Champaign:
Leisure Press; 1991.
39. Antonio Cabral. Marathon training—Portuguese style. https:// www.
runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ portu guese- marat hon- train ing- style-
anton io- cabral/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
40. Arcelli E, Canova R. Marathon training: a scientific approach. London:
International Athletic Foundation; 1999.
41. The complete Renato Canova coaching collection. https:// www. runne
rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ the- compl ete- renato- canova- coach ing- colle
ction/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
42. Daniels J. Daniel’s running formula. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics;
2013.
43. Davis J. Modern training and physiology for middle and long-distance
runners. Philadelphia: Running Writings; 2013.
44. Brad Hudson training system. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ brad- hudson- train ing- system/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
45. Mihaly Igloi training system. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ mihaly- igloi- train ing- system- by- bob- schul/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
46. Lydiard A, Gilmour G. Running to the top. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer; 1997.
47. Lydiard A. Running with Lydiard: greatest running coach of all time.
3rd ed. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport; 2017.
48. Livingstone K. Healthy intelligent training: the proven principles of
Arthur Lydiard. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Fachverlag und Buchhandel
GmbH; 2010.
49. Steve Magness training philosophy. https:// www. runne rprog ram.
com/ produ ct/ steve- magne ss- train ing- philo sophy/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
50. Kim McDonald training system. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ kim- mcdon ald- train ing- system/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
51. Terrence Mahon training philosophy. https:// www. runne rprog ram.
com/ produ ct/ terre nce- mahon- train ing- philo sophy/. Assessed Sep-
tember 1st 2021.
52. Gabriele Rosa Marathon training philosophy. https:// www. runne
rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ gabri ele- rosa- train ing- philo sophy/. Assessed
1 Sept 2021.
53. Joe Vigil training philosophy. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ joe- vigil- train ing- philo sophy/. Assessed September 1st 2021.
54. Vigil JI. Road to the top: a systematic approach to training distance
runners. 1st ed. Overland Park: Morning Star Communications; 1995.
55. Chris Wardlaws training system. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ chris- wardl aws- train ing- system/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
56. Said Aouita training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ said- aouita- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
57. Dieter Baumann training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ dieter- bauma nn- train ing- by- isabe lle- bauma nn/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
58. The making of Joshua Cheptegei and training insights of the Ugandan
team. https:// www. sweat elite. co/ making- joshua- chept egei- train ing-
insig hts- ugand an- team- part1/ and https:// www. sweat elite. co/ making-
joshua- chept egei- train ing- insig hts- ugand an- team- part2/. Assessed
September 1st 2021.
59. Haile Gebrselassie training. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ haile- gebrs elass ie/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
60. Bob Kennedy training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ bob-
kenne dy- 5000m- train ing- before- atlan ta- og- 96/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
61. Sylvia Kibet training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ sylvia- kibet- train ing- progr am- by- renato- canova/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
62. Florence Kiplagat training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ flore nce- kipla gat- train ing- progr am- renato- canova/. Assessed
1 Sept 2021.
63. Susanne Wigene training. https:// www. letsr un. com/ forum/ flat_ read.
php? thread= 94875 1& page=2. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
64. Sonia O’Sullivan training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ sonia- osull ivan- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
65. Sifan Hassan training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ sifan- hassan- train ing- by- honore- hoedt/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
66. Andy Vernon training. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes- train
ing- log/ andy- vernon/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
67. David Moorcroft training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ david- moorc roft- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
68. Bernard Lagat training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
james- li- train ing- berna rd- lagat/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
69. Craig Mottram training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ craig- mottr am- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
70. Paul Tergat training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ paul- tergat- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
71. Caleb Ndiku training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ caleb- ndiku- train ing- progr am- by- renato- canova/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
72. Yobes Ondieki training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ yobes- ondie ki- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
73. Daniel Komen training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ daniel- komen- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
74. Thomas Longosiwa training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram.
com/ produ ct/ thomas- longo siwa- train ing- progr am- by- renato- canova/.
Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
75. Imane Merga training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ imane- merga- train ing- progr am- renato- canova/. Assessed 1
Sept 2021.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 16 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
76. Stephen Cherono training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ steph en- chero no- train ing- progr am- renato- canova/. Assessed
1 Sept 2021.
77. Kip Keino training. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes- train ing-
log/ kipch oge- keino/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
78. Brendan Foster training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ brend an- foster- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
79. Ingrid Kristiansen training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
ingrid- krist iansen- train ing- 1986/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
80. Jim Peters training. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes- train ing-
log/ jim- peters/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
81. Gordon Pirie training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
gordon- pirie/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
82. Ian Stewart training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ ian- stewa rt- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
83. Lasse Viren training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ lasse-
viren- train ing- by- rolf- haikk ola/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
84. Grete Waitz training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ grete- waitz- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
85. Stefano Baldini training log. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ stefa no- baldi ni/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
86. Gelindo Bordin training log before winning the Olympic Games in
Seoul. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ gelin do- bordin- train
ing- log- before- winni ng- the- olymp ic- games- in- seoul/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
87. Takayuki Inubushi Marathon training. https:// www. runne rprog ram.
com/ produ ct/ takay uki- inubu shi- marat hon- train ing/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
88. Moses Mosop training log. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ moses- mosop/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
89. Geoffrey Mutai training log. https:// www. letsr un. com/ forum/ flat_ read.
php? thread= 89734 93. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
90. Charlie Spedding training log. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ charl ie- spedd ing- train ing- log/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
91. Abel Kirui training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/ abel-
kirui- train ing- winni ng- world- champ ionsh ip- gold- renato- canova/.
Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
92. Eliud Kipchoge training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ eliud- kipch oge- train ing- progr ams/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
93. Mubarak Hassan Shami training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ mubar ak- hassan- shami- marat hon- train ing/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
94. Meb Keflezighi training. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
meb- morta ls- run- think- eat- like- champ ion- marathoner/. Assessed 1
Sept 2021.
95. Greg Meyer training log. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ greg- meyer/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
96. Steve Jones training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ
ct/ steve- jones- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
97. Kenenisa Bekele’s training. https:// www. sweat elite. co/ kenen isa- bekel
es- train ing/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
98. Robert de Castella training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ robert- de- caste lla- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
99. Constantina Dita training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ const antina- dita- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
100. Molly Seidel - Strava pro runner profile. https:// www. strava. com/ pros/
bygol lymol ly. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
101. Joyciline Jepkosgei training. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ joyci line- jepko sgei/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
102. Tegla Lourope training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ tegla- lorou pe- marat hon- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept
2021.
103. Deena Kastor training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ deena- kastor- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
104. Lisa Martin training. https:// www. runne rstri be. com/ expert- advice/ train
ing- of- famous- runne rs/ lisa- ondie ki- track- and- milea ge- to- the- extre me/.
Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
105. Paula Radcliffe training program. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/
produ ct/ paula- radcl iffe- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
106. Bill Rodgers training log. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
bill- rodge rs- 1977- train ing- log/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
107. Toshihiko Seko training log. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
toshi hiko- seko- train ing- log- 1977- 1978/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
108. Brigid Kosgei training. https:// www. sweat elite. co/ kenyan- elite- train ing-
series- brigid- kosgei- 6428- half- marat hon- 21820- marat hon/. Assessed 1
Sept 2021.
109. Paul Kosgei training log. https:// runni ngsci ence. co. za/ elite- athle tes-
train ing- log/ paul- kosgei/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
110. Rodgers Rop training log. https:// www. runne rprog ram. com/ produ ct/
rodge rs- rop- train ing- log/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
111. Wilson Kipsang—4th fastest marathoner ever—training program.
https:// www. sweat elite. co/ wilson- kipsa ng- 4th- faste st- marat honer-
ever- train ing- progr am/. Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
112. Casado A, Tjelta LI. Training volume and intensity distribution among
elite middle- and long-distance runners. In: Blagrove RC, Hayes PR,
editors. The science and practice of middle and long distance running.
London: Routledge; 2021.
113. Sylta Ø, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. Do elite endurance athletes report their
training accurately? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:85–92.
114. Faiss R, Saugy J, Zollinger A, Robinson N, Schuetz F, Saugy M, Garnier
PY. Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes
during two major international events. Front Physiol. 2020;25(11):160.
115. Ulrich R, Pope HG Jr, Cléret L, Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Schaffer J, et al.
Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-
response surveys. Sports Med. 2018;48:211–9.
116. Filipas L, Bonato M, Gallo G, Codella R. Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal
and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance
runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32:498–511.
117. Matveyev LP. Periodisierung des sportlichen trainings. 2nd ed. Berlin:
Bartels & Wernitz; 1975.
118. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, Fry A, Gleeson M, Nieman D, et al.
Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome:
joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science
and the American College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2013;45:186–205.
119. World Athletics athlete search. https:// www. world athle tics. org/ athle tes.
Assessed 1 Sept 2021.
120. Kenneally M, Casado A, Santos-Concejero J. The effect of periodiza-
tion and training intensity distribution on middle-and long-distance
running performance: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2018;13:1114–21.
121. Kiely J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or
tradition-driven? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:242–50.
122. Bishop D, Botella J, Grantha C. CrossTalk opposing view: exercise
training volume is more important than training intensity to promote
increases in mitochondrial content. J Physiol. 2019;597:4115–8.
123. Morgan DW, Bransford DR, Costill DL, Daniels JT, Howley ET, Krahenbuhl
GS. Variation in the aerobic demand of running among trained and
untrained subjects. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:404–9.
124. Nelson RC, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of distance running: a longitudinal
study. Res Q. 1976;47:417–28.
125. González-Mohíno F, Santos-Concejero J, Yustres I, González-Ravé JM.
The effects of interval and continuous training on the oxygen cost of
running in recreational runners: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sports Med. 2020;50:283–94.
126. Chapman AR, Vicenzino B, Blanch P, Hodges PW. Is running less skilled
in triathletes than runners matched for running training history? Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:557–65.
127. Laursen PB. Training for intense exercise performance: High-intensity or
high-volume training? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20:1–10.
128. Hughes DC, Ellefsen S, Baar K. Adaptations to endurance and strength
training. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8:a029769.
129. Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, Karlsen T, Berg P, Bjerkaas M, et al. Aerobic
high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:665671.
130. Losnegaard T, Myklebust H, Spencer M, Hallen J. Seasonal variations
in VO2max, O2-cost, O2-deficit, and performance in elite cross-countr y
skiers. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:1780–90.
131. Jones AM. A five-year physiological case study of an Olympic runner. Br
J Sports Med. 1998;32:39–43.
132. Zapico AG, Calderón FJ, Benito PJ, González CB, Parisi A, Pigozzi F, Di
Salvo V. Evolution of physiological and haematological parameters
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 17 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
with training load in elite male road cyclists: a longitudinal study. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2007;47:191–6.
133. Van der Zaaard S, Brocherie F, Jaspers RT. Under the hood: Skeletal
muscle determinants of endurance performance. Front Physiol.
2021;7:19434.
134. MacInnis MJ, Skelly LE, Gibala MJ. CrossTalk proposal: exercise
training intensity is more important than volume to promote
increases in human skeletal muscle mitochondrial content. J Physiol.
2019;597:4111–3.
135. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration
distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2010;5:276–91.
136. Talsnes RK, van den Tillaar R, Sandbakk Ø. Effects of increased load of
low- versus high-intensity endurance training on performance and
physiological adaptations in endurance athletes. Int J Sports Physiol
Perf. 2021 [Online ahead of print]
137. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval training, solutions to
the programming puzzle. Part II: anaerobic energy, neuromuscular
load and practical applications. Sports Med. 2013;43:927–54.
138. Loy SF, Hoffmann JJ, Holland GJ. Benefits and practical use of cross-
training in sports. Sports Med. 1995;19:1–8.
139. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtrain-
ing syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:1164–8.
140. Sandbakk Ø, Haugen T, Ettema G. The influence of exercise modal-
ity on training load management. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2021;16:605–8.
141. Rønnestad BR, Mujika I. Optimizing strength training for running and
cycling endurance performance: a review. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2014;24:603–12.
142. Blagrove RC, Howatson G, Hayes PR. Effects of strength training on
the physiological determinants of middle- and long-distance run-
ning performance: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48:1117–49.
143. Berryman N, Mujika I, Arvisais D, Roubeix M, Binet C, Bosquet L.
Strength training for middle- and long-distance performance: a
meta-analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:57–63.
144. Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS. Training and performance characteristics
among Norwegian international rowers 1970–2001. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 2004;14:303–10.
145. Tønnessen E, Sylta Ø, Haugen T, Hem E, Svendsen I, Seiler S. The road
to gold: training and peaking characteristics in the year prior to a
gold medal endurance performance. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e101796.
146. Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Sandbakk Ø. The training characteristics of the
world’s most successful female cross-country skier. Front Physiol.
2017;8:1069.
147. Sandbakk Ø, Holmberg HC. Physiological capacity and training
routines of elite cross-country skiers: approaching the upper limits of
human endurance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:1003–11.
148. Schumacher OY, Mueller P. The 4000-m team pursuit cycling world
record: theoretical and practical aspects. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2002;34:1029–36.
149. Gao J. A study on pre-game training characteristics of Chinese elite
swimmers. J Beijing Sport Univ. 2008;31:832–4.
150. Siewierski M. Volume and structure of training loads of top swimmers
in direct starting preparation phase for main competition. Pol J Sport
Tour. 2010;17:227–32.
151. Guellich A, Seiler S, Emrich E. Training methods and intensity dis-
tribution of young world-class rowers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2009;4:448–60.
152. Neal CM, Hunter AM, Galloway SD. A 6-month analysis of training
intensity distribution and physiological adaptation in Ironman triath-
letes. J Sports Sci. 2009;29:1515–23.
153. Mujika I. Olympic preparation of a world-class female triathlete. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:727–31.
154. World Athletics. Athletic shoe regulations. https:// www. world athle
tics. org/ news/ press- relea ses/ new- athle tic- shoe- regul ations- appro
ved- 2022. Assessed February 28.
155. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating
the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance
runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med.
2019;49:331–42.
156. Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Low T, Ward J, Hager R. Running
economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci.
2019;37:2367–73.
157. Dyer B. A pragmatic approach to resolving technological unfairness:
the case of Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly running footwear. Sports Med
Open. 2020;6:21.
158. Hébert-Losier K, Finlayson SJ, Driller MW, Dubois B, Esculier JF, Beaven
CM. Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing
3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats,
and their own shoes. J Sport Health Sci. 2020 [Online ahead of print].
159. Bertelsen ML, Hulme A, Petersen J, Brund RK, Sørensen H, Finch CF,
Parner ET, Nielsen RO. A framework for the etiology of running-related
injuries. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27:1170–80.
160. Videbaek S, Bueno AM, Nielsen RO, Rasmussen S. Incidence of running-
related injuries per 1000 h of running in different types of runners: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45:1017–26.
161. Sandbakk Ø, Solli GS, Holmberg HC. Sex differences in world-record
performance: the influence of sport discipline and competition dura-
tion. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:2–8.
162. Notley SR, Lamarche DT, Meade RD, Flouris AD, Kenny GP. Revisiting the
influence of individual factors on heat exchange during exercise in dry
heat using direct calorimetry. Exp Physiol. 2019;104:1038–50.
163. Seiler KS, Kjerland GØ. Quantifying training intensity distribution in
elite endurance athletes: Is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution?
Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2006;16:49–56.
164. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds, and long slow distance:
the role of intensity and duration in endurance training. Sportscience.
2009;13:32–53.
165. Tønnessen E, Svendsen I, Rønnestad B, Hisdal J, Haugen T, Seiler S. The
annual training periodization of 8 World Champions in orienteering. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10:29–38.
166. Mann T, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI. Methods of prescribing relative exer-
cise intensity: physiological and practical considerations. Sports Med.
2013;43:613–25.
167. Le Meur Y, Pichon A, Schaal K, Schmitt L, Louis J, Gueneron J, Vidal PP,
Hausswirth C. Evidence of parasympathetic hyperactivity in functionally
overreached athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:2061–71.
168. Bellinger P, Arnold B, Minahan C. Quantifying the training-intensity
distribution in middle-distance runners: The influence of different
methods of training-intensity quantification. Int J Sports Physiol Per-
form. 2019 [Online ahead of print].
169. Jamnick NA, Pettitt RW, Granata C, Pyne DB, Bishop DJ. An examination
and critique of current methods to determine exercise intensity. Sports
Med. 2020;50:1729–56.
170. Stöggl TL, Sperlich B. The training intensity distribution among well-
trained and elite endurance athletes. Front Physiol. 2015;6:295.
171. Rosenblat MA, Perrotta AS, Vicenzino B. Polarized vs. threshold training
intensity distribution on endurance sport performance: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Strength
Cond Res. 2018;33:3491–500.
172. Kenneally M, Casado A, Santos-Concejero J. The effect of periodiza-
tion and training intensity distribution on middle- and long-distance
running performance: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2018;13:1114–21.
173. Foster C, Casado A, Esteve-Lanao J, Haugen T, Seiler S. Polarized training
is optimal for endurance athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 [Online
ahead of print].
174. Burnley M, Bearden SE, Jones AM. Polarized training is not optimal for
endurance athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 [Online ahead of print].
175. Seiler S, Haugen O, Kuffel E. Autonomic recovery after exercise in
trained athletes: intensity and duration effects. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2007;39:1366–73.
176. di Prampero PE, Fusi S, Sepulcri L, Morin JB, Belli A, Antonutto G. Sprint
running: a new energetic approach. J Exp Biol. 2005;208:2809–16.
177. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SM, Loenneke JP, Anderson JC.
Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic
and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:2293–307.
178. Nader GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training: from mol-
ecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:1965–70.
179. Mujika I, Padilla S. Scientific bases for precompetition tapering strate-
gies. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1182–7.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 18 of 18
Haugenetal. Sports Medicine - Open (2022) 8:46
180. Pyne DB, Mujika I, Reilly T. Peaking for optimal performance: Research
limitations and future directions. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:195–202.
181. Mujika I. Intense training: the key to optimal performance before and
during the taper. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20:24–31.
182. Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effects of tapering on perfor-
mance: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1358–65.
183. Hanley B. Pacing, packing and sex-based differences in Olympic and
IAAF World Championship marathons. J Sports Sci. 2016;34:1675–81.
184. Hanley B, Hettinga FJ. Champions are racers, not pacers: an analysis of
qualification patterns of Olympic and IAAF World Championship mid-
dle distance runners. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:2614–20.
185. Casado A, Hanley B, Jiménez-Reyes P, Renfree A. Pacing pro-
files and tactical behaviors of elite runners. J Sport Health Sci.
2020;S2095–2546(20):30077–86.
186. Forbes-Robertson S, Dudley E, Vadgama P, Cook C, Drawer S, Kilduff
L, et al. Circadian disruption and remedial interventions: effects and
interventions for jet lag for athletic peak performance. Sports Med.
2012;42:185–208.
187. Racinais S, Alonso JM, Coutts AJ, Flouris AD, Girard O, González-Alonso,
et al. Consensus recommendations on training and competing in the
heat. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1164–73.
188. Racinais S, Casa D, Brocherie F, Ihsan M. Translating science into prac-
tice: the perspective of the Doha 2019 IAAF World Championships in
the heat. Front Sports Act Living. 2019;1:39.
189. Burtscher M, Niedermeier M, Burtscher J, Pesta D, Suchy J, Strasser
B. Preparation for endurance competitions at altitude: physiological,
psychological, dietary and coaching aspects. A narrative review. Front
Physiol. 2018;9:1504.
190. Chapman RF, Laymon AS, Levine BD. Timing of arrival and pre-acclima-
tization strategies for the endurance athlete competing at moderate to
high altitudes. High Alt Med Biol. 2013;14:319–24.
191. Mujika I, Sharma AP, Stellingwerff T. Contemporary periodization of
altitude training for elite endurance athletes: a narrative review. Sports
Med. 2019;49:1651–69.
192. Chapman RF, Karlsen T, Resaland GK, Ge RL, Harber MP, Witkowski
S, et al. Defining the “dose” of altitude training: how high to live
for optimal sea level performance enhancement. J Appl Physiol.
2014;116:595–603.
193. Constantini K, Wilhite DP, Chapman RF. A clinician guide to altitude
training for optimal endurance exercise performance at sea level. High
Alt Med Biol. 2017;18:93–101.
194. Stellingwerff T, Peeling P, Gar vican-Lewis LA, Hall R, Koivisto AE, Heikura
IA, Burke LM. Nutrition and altitude: strategies to enhance adaptation,
improve performance and maintain health: a narrative review. Sports
Med. 2019;49:169–84.
195. Siebenmann C, Dempsey JA. Hypoxic training is not beneficial in elite
athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52:519–22.
196. Millet GP, Brocherie F. Hypoxic training is beneficial in elite athletes. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52:515–8.
197. Nummela A, Eronen T, Koponen A, Tikkanen H, Peltonen JE. Variability in
hemoglobin mass response to altitude training camps. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 2021;31:44–51.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Thomas Haugen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Haugen on Apr 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
