Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sports Medicine
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Sports Medicine (2024) 54:2935–2953
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02067-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Training Session Models inEndurance Sports: ANorwegian
Perspective onBest Practice Recommendations
EspenTønnessen1· ØyvindSandbakk2· SilvanaBucherSandbakk3· StephenSeiler4· ThomasHaugen1
Accepted: 10 June 2024 / Published online: 16 July 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
Background Our scientific understanding of the mechanistic and practical connections between training session prescrip-
tions, their execution by athletes, and adaptations over time in elite endurance sports remains limited. These connections are
fundamental to the art and science of coaching.
Objective By using successful Norwegian endurance coaches as key informants, the aim of this study is to describe and
compare best practice session models across different exercise intensities in Olympic endurance sports.
Methods Data collection was based on a four-step pragmatic qualitative study design, involving questionnaires, training
logs from successful athletes, and in-depth and semi-structured interviews, followed by negotiation among researchers and
coaches to assure our interpretations. Twelve successful and experienced male Norwegian coaches from biathlon, cross-
country skiing, long-distance running, road cycling, rowing, speed skating, swimming, and triathlon were chosen as key
informants. They had been responsible for the training of world-class endurance athletes who altogether have won > 370
medals in international championships.
Results The duration of low-intensity training (LIT) sessions ranges from 30min to 7h across sports, mainly due to modality-
specific constraints and load tolerance considerations. Cross-training accounts for a considerable part of LIT sessions in
several sports. Moderate (MIT)- and high-intensity training (HIT) sessions are mainly conducted as intervals in specific
modalities, but competitions also account for a large proportion of annual HIT in most sports. Interval sessions are character-
ized by a high accumulated volume, a progressive increase in intensity throughout the session, and a controlled, rather than
exhaustive, execution approach. A clear trend towards shorter intervals and lower work: rest ratio with increasing intensity
was observed. Overall, the analyzed sports implement considerably more MIT than HIT sessions across the annual cycle.
Conclusions This study provides novel insights on quantitative and qualitative aspects of training session models across
intensities employed by successful athletes in Olympic endurance sports. The interval training sessions revealed in this
study are generally more voluminous, more controlled, and less exhaustive than most previous recommendations outlined
in research literature.
* Thomas Haugen
thomas.haugen@kristiania.no
1 School ofHealth Sciences, Kristiania University College,
PB 1190 Sentrum, 0107Oslo, Norway
2 Department ofNeuromedicine andMovement Science,
Centre forElite Sports Research, Norwegian University
ofScience andTechnology, 7491Trondheim, Norway
3 Department ofTeacher Education, Norwegian University
ofScience andTechnology, 7491Trondheim, Norway
4 Faculty ofHealth andSport Sciences, University ofAgder,
PB 422, 4604Kristiansand, Norway
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2936 E.Tønnessen et al.
Key Points
This study describes training session models across
intensities applied by world-leading coaches in endur-
ance sports.
Training session models vary substantially across sports,
mainly due to load tolerance considerations for the
locomotion modality, seasonal circumstances, and sport-
specific demands.
The interval training session models outlined here are
more voluminous, more controlled, and less exhaustive
than recommendations from many published interven-
tion studies.
1 Introduction
Numerous studies published over the last ~ 25years have
quantified the training characteristics of elite endurance ath-
letes, in which annual training volumes range from ~ 500
to ~ 1200h per year, distributed across 300–600 training
sessions [1–29]. This large variation among equally suc-
cessful performers is mainly explained by modality-specific
constraints (e.g., weight-bearing versus nonweight bearing
sports, type of muscle action involved, cycle/muscle-con-
traction time, and leg-dominant versus whole-body exer-
cise), although individual predispositions also matter [27].
Depending on the specific quantification approach (i.e., cat-
egorizing the distribution of whole sessions versus minute-
for-minute time in zone), about 80–90% of endurance train-
ing is performed at low intensity (below the first lactate or
ventilatory turn point), while the remaining 10–20% is per-
formed at higher intensity [2, 7, 14, 18, 22]. While the inter-
action between training volume and intensity distribution
is well described at an annual and monthly level in rowing
[1–5], cross-country (XC) skiing [7, 8, 24–26], road cycling
[9–12], long-distance running [13–16, 20–23], swimming
[17–19], and triathlon [27–29], corresponding information
for prescription and execution of individual endurance train-
ing sessions are sparse.
Training prescription for continuous exercise sessions
include selection of exercise modality, working duration, and
intensity, while interval training also encompasses manipula-
tion of number of repetitions, number of series, relief interval
intensity and duration, and the between-series recovery dura-
tion and intensity [31]. Ironically, interval training sessions
are often described in more detail compared with continuous
exercise training [2, 20, 31], although the latter training form
by far constitutes the largest proportion of training in elite
endurance athletes.
Session model comparisons across studies and sports are
complicated because of inconsistent methodological frame-
works (e.g., intensity zones) and terminology. Moreover, most
of the research within this topic has been conducted on well-
trained but nonelite volunteers who perform training sessions
that may not be consistent with what “elite” endurance athletes
perform [31]. Detailed training session descriptions have been
presented for world-leading long-distance runners and XC ski-
ers [20–26]. These studies show large between-sport differ-
ences in duration for low-intensity training (LIT), and partly
also for moderate-intensity training (MIT) sessions, while
the summated duration for high-intensity training (HIT) ses-
sions appear more consistent. Corresponding training session
descriptions for sports such as road cycling, swimming, tri-
athlon, rowing, biathlon, and speed skating are clearly under-
represented or missing. Due to the large variations in annual
training volume across endurance sports [30], it is reasonable
to expect large variations in training session prescriptions as
well.
Indeed, more research is needed to improve our under-
standing of session model features among elite endur-
ance sports. The very best practitioners are often years
ahead of sport science in integrating the critical features
of training [2, 16, 22], and experienced coaches who have
achieved success with multiple athletes over time are
likely best capable to describe good session designs and
identify factors ensuring high training consistency and
quality [32, 33]. Surprisingly, the practices, knowledge
and experience of the very best endurance sport coaches
have received minimal attention in research literature.
Norway has been one of the world-leading sport
nations per capita in the last two to three decades [34],
with most Olympic and World Championships medals
won in endurance sports such as XC skiing, biathlon,
speed skating, rowing, cycling, swimming, long-distance
running, and triathlon. One of the advantages of the
Norwegian system is that endurance sports use the same
framework for defining training content, facilitating valid
comparisons across sports. By using successful Norwe-
gian endurance coaches as key informants, the aim of this
study is to describe and compare best practice session
models across different training intensities in Olympic
endurance sports. Within this context, we define endur-
ance sports as disciplines with ≥ 6min competition dura-
tion with an aerobic energy contribution of ≥ 85%.
2 Methods
2.1 Study Design
This study is a part of a larger project investigating success-
ful coaches in Olympic endurance sports, where the overall
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2937
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
aim is to gain comprehensive insights regarding the holistic
training philosophies and practices at the macro-, meso- and
micro-level. For the current study, a pragmatic multiple case
study design was used to investigate best practice session
models successfully used to attain world-class performance
in Olympic endurance sports. To investigate the complex-
ity and capture sport-specific dimensions and perspectives,
the following cases were selected: XC skiing, biathlon,
swimming, long-distance running, long-track speed skat-
ing (hereafter referred to as speed skating), rowing, road
cycling, and triathlon. To allow for comparison and contrast
across sports, all cases were selected within Norway, assum-
ing similar culture and context. Some of the most successful
and experienced coaches were chosen as key informants.
2.2 Participants
Twelve male Norwegian coaches participated in this study.
They were all currently or previously responsible for the
training of world-class endurance athletes who altogether
have won more than 370 Olympic, World, and European
Championship medals, mainly with Norwegian athletes. All
coaches had experience of coaching both males and females.
Two coaches were involved in XC skiing, biathlon, swim-
ming, triathlon, and long-distance running, while one coach
was involved in speed skating, rowing, and road cycling.
One informant coached both swimming and triathlon ath-
letes. Annual training volume measures prescribed by the
coaches in these sports are presented in Table1. All the
coaches provided a written informed consent to participate
prior to the study and approved the manuscript prior to sub-
mission. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health
Research Ethics waived the requirement for ethical approval
for this study and the ethics of the project was performed
according to the institutional requirements at the School of
Health Sciences, Kristiania University College. Approval for
data security and handling was obtained from the Norwegian
Centre for Research Data (reference no. 605672).
2.3 Procedures
Inspired by the key informant technique in ethnographic
research, a pragmatic four-step procedure was used to col-
lect and quality-assure comprehensive information on best
practice regarding key session models across different endur-
ance sports:
1. Initially, an extensive questionnaire related to planning,
conducting, and evaluation of training at the macro,
meso, micro, and session level was administered to all
coaches.
2. The next step consisted of quality-assurance of data
through conversations with the coaches and cross-ref-
erencing with historically reported training logs from
some of their most successful athletes.
3. Thereafter, a semistructured interview was conducted
with each coach by the first and second authors to obtain
supplementary information related to the qualitative
aspects of session models among elite endurance sports.
Within this context, training quality is defined as the
degree of excellence related to how the training process
or training sessions are executed to optimize adaptations
and/or improve overall performance [33]. Each inter-
view lasted approximately 180min, of which about one-
third was directly related to this study. The interviews
were audio recorded and transcribed. Formal translation
and back translation from Norwegian to English were
performed by the first and third author, respectively.
4. During analysis, we involved the coaches in an extensive
review process and follow-up interviews to clarify and
ensure that the findings reflected their perspectives on
best practice training sessions as accurately as possible.
In terms of endurance training intensity quantification, a
six-zone scale developed by the Norwegian Top Sport Cen-
tre (Table2) was applied. Modified versions of this scale
have been used in several previous studies [35–37]. Training
Table 1 Annual training volume
measures (range) across the
analyzed endurance sports
Swimming, cycling, and running in triathlon account for approximately 20–25, 25–30, and 45–50% of the
annual training hours, respectively
Sport Hours per year Sessions per year Competition
days per year
Intensive train-
ing days per
year
%
specific
training
Biathlon 800–1000 500–575 30–40 100–120 > 60
Cross-country skiing 900–1100 525–575 30–40 100–120 > 60
Long-distance running 600–700 550–625 20–35 110–140 > 90
Road cycling 1000–1200 300–350 50–80 110–130 > 90
Rowing 850–1000 475–525 25–35 100–125 > 60
Speed skating 900–1100 500–575 25–35 120–140 > 15
Swimming 1150–1350 650–700 20–30 130–150 > 70
Triathlon 1200–1400 700–800 15–25 130–150 100
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2938 E.Tønnessen et al.
zone determination during practice was determined by the
coaches based on a holistic interpretation of all the included
metrics listed in Table2. Moreover, a modified session goal
approach based on Sylta etal. [36] was employed. That is,
training intensity distribution was described in terms of
the categorical distribution of prescribed training sessions
across intensity zones based on their execution. In compari-
son with a time-in-zone approach that will overemphasize
LIT, this method presents a more representative picture of
MIT and LIT prescription within long-term programming.
Here, only the main part of the session was considered,
while warmup and cool down were excluded. We use the
term “accumulated work duration” (AWD) for interval ses-
sions, and this is defined as the summated duration of the
work bouts only.
For the purpose of this study, cross training was defined
as endurance training in a nonspecific mode. Treadmill run-
ning (including antigravity treadmill running), roller ski-
ing, roller skating, ergometer rowing, and indoor cycling
were considered specific (i.e., not cross training) for runners,
cross-country skiers/biathletes, speed skaters, rowers, and
cyclists, respectively.
2.4 Analyses
Numerical information on training session organization
across intensity zones was systematized in Microsoft Excel
(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) for descriptive
presentations. Thereafter, this information was compared
with information from training diaries of successful athletes
in the respective sports and calibrated among the authors
and coaches.
To identify similarities and differences within and across
endurance sports, summaries of common session-model
features across endurance sports and sport-specific features
related to planning and execution of training sessions were
outlined.
3 Results
Table2 presents commonly applied training session mod-
els across intensity zones among Norwegian world-leading
athletes in Olympic endurance sports, while Table3 pro-
vides an overview of how the loading factors are typically
organized across intensity zones within the same sports.
Overall, LIT sessions account for approximately 75–80%
of all sessions. These are dominated by continuous exer-
cise, although swimming, rowing, speed skating, and road
cycling also apply low-intensive intervals. Athletes from
all disciplines surveyed performed the vast majority of
LIT sessions in Z1 and only to a limited extent in Z2. The
duration of typical continuous LIT sessions spans from
30 to 420min across sports, with long-distance running
on the lower end and road cycling on the upper end of
the scale. Long-distance running, road cycling, swimming
and triathlon perform most LIT sessions in the specific
modalities, while nonspecific cross-training accounts for
a considerable proportion of total LIT sessions in speed
skating, rowing, biathlon, and XC skiing.
MIT sessions (i.e., Z3) account for approximately
10–15% of all sessions across the annual cycle. These are
mainly performed as intervals, although with large sport-
specific variations. AWD is in the range of 20–90min,
and interval times are mainly in the range 5–20min, while
work-to-rest ratio is mainly in the range 6–4:1 (Tables3
and 4). Biathlon, XC skiing, road cycling, and swimming
also apply continuous work in Z3, with accumulated work
duration in the range 40–60min. In several sports, particu-
larly road cycling, competitions account for a considerable
part of the overall Z3 volume.
HIT sessions comprise about 5–10% of all sessions and
are mainly conducted as intervals and competitions in all
sports. AWD is in the range 15–50min for Z4, 10–30min
for Z5, and 3–15min for Z6/7 (warmup and cool down
not included), while work bout durations are in the range
1–10min, from 30s to 7min, and from 20s to 3min,
respectively (Table3 and 4). Work-to-rest ratio is in the
range 3–2:1 for Z4, 2–1:1 for Z5, and 1–0.1:1 for Z6/7, but
sport-specific differences are clearly present. Competitions
account for a considerable part of Z4/5 work among elite
athletes, as most sports have at least 15–20 competition
days per year (Table1).
Most coaches reported applying a limited set of ses-
sion models within each zone for week-to-week calibra-
tion/control of performance development. Within these
sessions, several common features were identified across
endurance sports that are described in detail in Table5.
These include the application of hard–easy rhythmicity,
few but well-known session models, lactate measurements
for intensity control, limited use of all-out endurance
Table 2 Intensity scale for elite endurance athletes
BLa typical blood lactate (normative blood lactate concentration
ranges based on red-cell lysed blood), RPE rating of perceived exer-
tion (based on Borg’s 6–20 scale), HIT high intensity training, MIT
moderate intensity training, LIT low intensity training
Scale Heart rate VO2BLa RPEBorg
6-zone 3-zone (% max) (% max) (mmol/L) 6–20
6 HIT NA NA > 10 18–20
5 HIT > 93 94–100 6.0–10.0 18–19
4 HIT 88–92 88–93 4.0–6.0 17–18
3 MIT 83–87 81–87 2.5–4.0 15–16
2 LIT 73–82 66–80 1.5–2.5 13–14
1 LIT 60–72 50–65 < 1.5 10–12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2939
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
Table 3 Commonly applied training session models across intensity zones in Norwegian world-leading endurance athletes
Sport Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6/7
Biathlon
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(4–7 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 1:30–2:30h
ski skating
Continuous: 1:00–2:00h
ski double poling
Continuous: 2:30–4:00h
cycling or running in
soft terrain
“Pure” Z2 sessions are
rarely applied, but long-
slow-distance sessions
may include 15–45min
Z2 work to maintain
effective technique
uphill
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–8 × 8min
uphill ski skating,
R = 2min
Continuous: 45–60min
skiing or roller ski
skating
Intervals: 4 × 15min
mountain-bike cycling,
R = 2–3min
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–8 × 4–5min
ski skating, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 5–6 × 6min
uphill running w/w.o.
poles, R = 2–3min
Continuous: 7.5–15km
(20–45min) ski test race
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4–6 × 2–4min
ski skating, R = 2–4min
Intervals: 6 × 4min uphill
running w/w.o. poles,
R = 2–4min
Intervals: 5–8 × 2–3min
ski skating, R = 1–2min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 6–10 × 20–30s
ski skating, R = 1–2min
Intervals: finish sprints on
certain Z5 sessions
XC skiing
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(4–7 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 1:30–2:00h
running or skiing
Continuous: 2–3h skiing
or running in soft terrain
Continuous: 3–4h running
in soft terrain
“Pure” Z2 sessions are
rarely applied, but long-
slow-distance sessions
may include 15–45min
Z2 work to maintain
effective technique
uphill
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–8 × 8min
running or skiing,
R = 2min
Continuous: 45–60min
skiing
Intervals: 4 × 15min
skiing, R = 2min
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 6–8 × 4–5min
uphill running w/w.o.
poles, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 5–6 × 5–6min
uphill skiing,
R = 2–3min
Continuous: 10–15km
(25–40min) ski test race
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–6 × 3–5min
skiing, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 8–10 × 2min
skiing or uphill running
w/poles, R = 1min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 8–12 × 1min ski-
ing, R = 1min
Intervals: 4–5 × 2–3min
skiing, R = 5–10min
LD running
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(5–9 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 8–14km
(30–50min) running
Continuous: 14–17km
(50–75min) running
Continuous: 20–25km
(1:15–1:45h) running
“Pure” Z2 sessions are
rarely applied, but
progressive long runs
may include 5–30min
running in Z2
(2–5 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 10–12 × 1000m
(~ 3:00min) running,
R = 45–60s
Intervals: 6 × 5min run-
ning, R = 1min
Intervals: 3 × 3km
(9–10min) running,
R = 2min
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 6–8 × 1000m
(2:45–3:00min) run-
ning,
R = 1:30min
Intervals: 20–25 × 400m
(65–70s) running,
R = 30–45s
Intervals: 4–6 × 2km
(6:00–6:20min) run-
ning,
R = 2min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4–6 × 1000m
(2:30–3:00min) run-
ning,
R = 2min
Intervals: 10–15 × 400m
(60–70s) running,
R = 60–75s
Intervals: 20 × 200m
(30–40s) hill repeats,
R = easy jog back
(~ 60s)
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5 × 300m
(35–40s) running,
R = 3–5min
Intervals: 10–12 × 200m
(25–30s) running,
R = 30–60s
Road cycling
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(3–6 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 3–7h cycling
(small parts in Z2 due to
terrain variations)
Continuous: 1–2h low-
gear cycling (after
competition or HIT)
Continuous: great parts
of competition races
are performed in Z1
(depending on terrain,
role in the team, etc.)
(1–2 weekly sessions)
Continuous: parts of easy
long rides or competi-
tions occur in Z2,
depending on terrain and
role within the team
Intervals: 8–10 × 3–6min
low-cadence (RPM
40–60) cycling with one
or two legs, R = 1–2min
easy pedaling
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4 × 10–15min
cycling, R = 2min. Or
6 × 8min, R = 1–2min
Continuous: 1h cycling
Competitions: long-tempo
stages and mountain
climbs in long tour
stages mainly occur
in Z3
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4–8min reps
for a total of 45min,
2–3min easy cycling in
between
Intervals: 2–4–6–8–10–8–
6–4–2min, R = 1–3min
Intervals: motor-paced
interval cycling (Z2–
5), ~ 1h total session
duration (10–20min
in Z4)
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 10 × 1–3min,
R = 1min
Intervals: 15–25min of
short intervals with
varying work durations
(15–60s) and brief
recoveries (15–30s)
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4–5 × 30–90s all-
out repeats, R = 5min
Intervals: specific sprint-
training with gradually
increased speed while
drafting behind team-
mates before a 15s full
sprint
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2940 E.Tønnessen et al.
Table 3 (continued)
Sport Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6/7
Rowing
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(5–8 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 1–2h
(12–20km) rowing
Continuous: 2:30–3:00h
(26–30km) rowing
Continuous: 2–4h skiing
or cycling
(1–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 3–4 × 20min
rowing, R = 2min
Intervals: 4 × 15min row-
ing, R = 2–5min
Continuous: 60min
rowing
(1–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 3–4 × 15–20min
rowing, R = 4min
Intervals: 6–8 × 10min
rowing, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 6 × 6min uphill
running, R = 2min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4–5 × 10min
rowing, R = 4–5min
Intervals: 8–12 × 4min
rowing, R = 1–2min
Intervals: 4–6 × 6–8min
rowing, R = 2–3min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 6–8 × 5min
rowing, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 5–7 × 4min
rowing, R = 2–3min
Intervals: 4–5 × 7min
rowing, R = 3–5min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–7 × 500m row-
ing (~ 1:30min) rowing,
R = 5min
Intervals: 2–3 × 1000m
rowing (~ 3min),
R = 5–7min
Speed skating
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(4–7 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 2–5h road
cycling
Intervals: 3–5 × 20–30min
roller skating outdoors,
R = 1–3min
Continuous: 1–2h on bike
trainer (after skating
sessions)
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals:
3 × 10min + 4 × 5min
inline/roller skating,
R = 3min
Intervals: 5 × 10–12min
roller skating, R = 5min
Intervals: 4 × 12min
inline/roller skating,
R = 3min
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 6 × 8min road
cycling on flat or uphill,
R = 2min
Intervals: 4–5 × 15min
uphill road cycling,
R = ~ 6min (roll back)
(Specific speed skating
rarely applied in Z3)
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4 × 5000m
(6–7min) skating,
R = 5–10min
Intervals: 4 × 6–10min
progressive skating,
R = 3min
Intervals: 10 × 3–4min
skating, R = 3min
(0–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 8–10 × 1600 or
2000m (2:15–3:00min)
skating, R = 3–7min
Intervals: 4 × 5000m
(~ 6–7min) skating,
R = 5–10min
Intervals: 4 × 12min
progressive skating (last
2–4min of each interval
in Z5), R = 4min
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 2 × (8–10 × 500m
(~ 40s) skating, R = 700m
sliding (~ 1:30min),
SR = 5–7min
Intervals: 3 × 1600m
(~ 1:50–2:00min)
team pursuit skat-
ing, R = 5–8min,
SR = 10–15min.
(2 × 10min Z4 skating
afterwards)
Swimming
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
(7–9 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 3–6 × 1500m
(17–19min) crawl,
R = 30–60s
Intervals: 5–10 × 800m
(9:15–10:30min) crawl,
R = 30–45s
Intervals:
2–3 × 800m (9:15–
10:30min) + 2 × 400m
(4:40–
5:00min) + 4 × 200m
(2:20–2:30min) crawl,
R = 15–30s
(1–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5–8 × 800m
(8:45–9:45min crawl,
R = 30–60s
Intervals: 6–10 × 600m
(6:30–7:15min) crawl,
R = 30–60s
Intervals: 4–6 × [5 × 100m
(4:15–
4:30min) + 1 × 500m
(5:30–6:15min)],
R = 15–30s
(1–3 weekly sessions)
Continuous: 4000m
(43–45min) crawl
Intervals: 4–6 × 1000m
(11:00–12:00min)
crawl, R = 1:30–2:00min
Intervals: 20–24 × 200m
(2:05–2:20min) crawl,
R = ~ 30s
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 4 × 800m
crawl (8:30–9:30min),
R = 2:30min
Intervals: 6–8 × 400m
(4:10–4:40min) crawl,
R = 60s
Intervals: 12–15 × 200m
(2:00–2:10min crawl,
R = 60s
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 3–5 × 400m
(3:55–4:25min),
R = 2–3min
Intervals: 4–6 × 300m
(2:55–3:15min) crawl,
R = 2–3min
Intervals: 8–10 × 200m
(1:55–2:05min crawl,
R = 60–90s
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 8–16 × 50m
(25–30s) crawl, R = 1:00–
1:30min
Intervals: 8 × 50m (27–
30s) crawl, R = 10–15s
Intervals: 2–3 × (5 × 100m
(57–63s), R = 10–20s,
200 “gliding” crawl
between sets
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2941
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
Table 3 (continued)
Sport Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6/7
Triathlon
Example 1
(swimming)
Example 2
(road cycling)
Example 3
(running)
Brick
workouts
(combined sessions)
(7–11 weekly sessions)
“Pure” Z1 swimming ses-
sions are rarely applied,
but warmup and cool
down may occur in Z1
Continuous: 2:00–3:30h
road cycling
Continuous: 1–2h running
NA
(2–3 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 5 × 800m
(9:30–11min)
crawl, R = 45–60s.
Or 18–20 × 200m
(2:25–2:45min) crawl,
R = 20–30s
Continuous: 1–2h road
cycling
Continuous: 45–90min
running
NA
(3–6 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 30–35 × 100m
crawl (1:08–1:20min),
R = 30s. Or 8 × 400m
(4:40–5:15min) crawl,
R = 1min
Intervals: 8–11 × 8min
cycling, R = 1–2min
Intervals: 10–14 × 1000m
(3:00–3:30min) running,
R = 1min
Brick 1: 8–10 × 200m (2:10–
2:30min) crawl, R = 30s.
Then 60min continuous
road cycling with inlaid
accelerations (600–1000 W)
Brick 2: 50–60min road
cycling followed by
8–10km (25–40min)
running
(1–2 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 40–60 × 50m
(29–35s) crawl,
R = 15s. Or 6 × 400
(4:30–5:00min) crawl,
R = 1:30min
NA
NA
Brick 1: 15–20 × 100m
(1:05–1:15min) crawl,
R = 15–20s. Then
50–60min continuous
road cycling with inlaid
accelerations 600–1000
W) every third min
Brick 2: 50–60min
cycling followed
by 5 × 2km (5:50–
6:40min) running
intervals (R = 1min)
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 15–20 × 100m
(1:01–1:12min) crawl,
R = 1:30min
Intervals: 6–8 × 3min
road cycling, R = 2min
Intervals: 6 × 1000m
(2:50–3:20min) run-
ning, R = 2min
NA
(0–1 weekly sessions)
Intervals: 16 × 50m
(27–33s) crawl, R = 60s.
Or 8 × 100m (0:57–
1:10min) crawl, R = 90s
NA
NA
NA
The most typical sessions are listed first (example 1), while the other sessions (example 2 and 3) are applied less frequently. Upper range values for duration/distance, sets and repetitions reflect
typical preparation-period sessions, while corresponding lower range values reflect competition-period sessions. Upper and lower range for interval times denote women and men, respectively
Z intensity zone, LD long distance XC cross country, R recoveries between repetitions (and sets where stated), w/w.o. with or without. “Pure” Z2 sessions are rarely applied in long-distance run-
ning, XC skiing, and biathlon. In rowing, swimming and speed skating, Z2 training is performed for technical development purposes. Warmup and cool down are performed in addition to the
described interval training sessions. Typical warmup routines for runners, road cyclists, XC skiers, biathletes, and triathletes include 20–30min in a specific modality where the intensity pro-
gresses gradually from Z1 to Z3 at the latter part (runners and cyclists also perform three to five strides at the end of the warmup). Speed skaters perform 20–30min cycling in Z1–2, followed
by 10–20min skating imitation exercises, four to six skating rounds on track with progressive intensity (Z1–4), and 2–4 × 30–40s skating in Z5–6. Swimmers typically perform 15–30min of
land-based mobility exercises with and without rubber bands, 15–20min progressive swimming in Z1–3, and, finally, 3–5 × 5–10 s swimming sprints. Rowers typically perform 20–30min
ergometer cycling or rowing in Z1–2 and 10–20min rowing on water in Z1–3, followed by two to three repetitions of accelerated rowing sprints. Cool downs for most sports typically consist of
20–30min Z2–1 (i.e., regressive work) in a specific modality, except for speed skaters and rowers, who perform 30–60min cycling in Z1
In XC skiing, most athletes train around 50% in the skating and 50% in the classic style. All ski sessions for XC and biathlon can also be performed on roller skies. In biathlon, all Z3-4 sessions
can include shooting during the rest intervals. Specific rowing sessions can be performed on a rowing ergometer. Similarly, specific speed-skating sessions can be performed on roller skates.
The running sessions for triathletes can be performed on paved/dirt roads or rubberized track
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2942 E.Tønnessen et al.
Table 4 Loading factor organization in typical training sessions across intensity zones
Sports and loading factors Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6-7
Biathlon
AWD (min per session) 60–240 15-45a30–65 20–40 15–25 5–10
% specific/nonspecific modality > 70/< 30 > 80/< 20 > 70/< 30 > 80/< 20 > 80/< 20 100/NA
Method Cont. Cont. Cont. or int. Int. or comp. Int. or comp. Int
Work interval duration (min) NA NA 8–15 2–6 0:30–4 0:20–1
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 4–8 5–8 4–8 6–10
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA 2–3 (NA) 2–3 (NA) 0:15–4 (NA) 1–3 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 7–3:1 3–2:1 2–1:1 0.5–0.25:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Both Passive Passive
XC skiing
AWD (min per session) 60–240 15-45a40–65 20–40 15–25 5–12
% specific/nonspecific modality > 70/< 30 > 70/< 30 > 70/< 30 > 70/< 30 > 70/< 30 > 80/< 20
Method Cont. Cont. Cont. or int. Int. or comp. Int. or comp. Int
Work interval duration (min) NA NA 8–15 2–6 0:30–5 0:20–3
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 4–8 5–8 5–10 4–12
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA ~ 2 (NA) 2–3 (NA) 0:15–3 (NA) 1–10 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 7–4:1 3–2:1 1.5–1:1 1–0.2:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Both Passive Passive
LD running
AWD (min per session) 30–105 5-30a20–40 15–35 10–20 3–6
% specific/nonspecific modality > 90/< 10 100 100 100 100 100
Method Cont Cont Cont. or int. Int. or comp. Int. or comp. Int
Work interval duration (min) NA NA 3–12 1–6 0:30–3 0:20–0:40
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 5–12 4–25 4–20 5–12
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA 1–2 (NA) 0:30–3 (NA) 1–2 (NA) 0:30–5 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 5–3:1 2–1.5:1 1.5–0.5:1 1–0.1:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Passive Both Passive
Road cycling
AWD (min per session) 120–420 20–60 45–60 20–50 10–30 4–8
% specific/nonspecific modality 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA
Method Cont Cont. or int. Int. or cont Int Int Int
Work interval duration (min) NA 3–6 8–15 2–10 0:15–3 0:20–1:30
Total number of intervals per session NA 8–10 4–6 4–10 4–10 4–10
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA 1–2 1–2 1–3 0:15–1 3–5
Work-to-rest ratio 10–4:1 10–4:1 4–2:1 3–1:1 0.3–0.1:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Both Both Both Both
Rowing
AWD (min per session) 60–240 60–80 45–80 30–50 20–40 7–10
% specific/nonspecific modality > 70/ < 30 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA
Method Cont Cont. or int. Int Int Int. or comp. Int
Work interval duration (min) NA 15–20 6–20 4–10 4–7 1:30–3
Total number of intervals per session NA 3–4 3–8 4–12 4–8 2–7
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA 2–5 (NA) 2–4 (NA) 1–5 (NA) 2–5 (NA) 5–7 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 10–4:1 5–3:1 4–2:1 2.5–1.5:1 0.6–0.3:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Both Passive Passive Passive
Speed skating
AWD (min per session) 60–300 50–60 45–75 25–40 20–30 6–12
% specific/nonspecific modality < 10/ > 90 > 70/ < 30 < 10/ > 90 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA
Method Cont. or int. Int Int Int Int. or comp. Int. or comp.
Work interval duration (min) 15–30 10–15 8–15 3–10 2–7 0:40–2
Total number of intervals per session 3–5 3–7 4–6 4–10 4–10 3–20
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) 1–3 (NA) 3–5 (NA) 2–6 (NA) 3–10 (NA) 3–10 (NA) 1:30–8:00 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 20–10:1 5–1.5:1 5–3:1 3–0.7:1 0.5–1:1 0.4–0.3:1
Passive or active recoveries Passive Both Active Both Both Both
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2943
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
Table 4 (continued)
Sports and loading factors Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6-7
Swimming
AWD (min per session) 60–150 40–80 45–70 25–40 12–20 4–15
% specific/nonspecific modality > 90/ < 10 100/NA > 90/ < 10 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA
Method Int. or cont Int Int. or cont Int Int. or comp. Int
Work interval duration (min) 2–20 4–10 2–12 2–10 1–5 0:30–1
Total number of intervals per session 3–10 5–10 4–25 4–15 3–10 8–16
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) 0:15–1 (NA) 0:15–1 (NA) 0:30–2 (NA) 1:00–2:30 (NA) 1–3 (NA) 0:10–1:30 (NA)
Work-to-rest ratio 50–20:1 20–7:1 7–4:1 4–2:1 2–1:1 7–0.3:1
Passive or active recoveries Passive Passive Both Both Both Both
Triathlon—swimming
AWD (min per session) NAb45–60 30–45 20–30 15–22 NA
% specific/nonspecific modality NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA NA
Method NA Int Int Int. or comp. Int NA
Work interval duration (min) NA 2:30–12 1–5 0:30–5 0:30–1:30 NA
Total number of intervals per session NA 5–20 8–35 6–60 10–20 NA
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA 0:20–1 (NA) 0:30–1 (NA) 0:15–1:30 (NA) 1–2/(NA) NA
Work-to-rest ratio 10–5:1 5–2.5:1 3–2:1 1.3–0.7:1
Passive or active recoveries Passive Passive Passive Both
Triathlon—cycling
AWD (min per session) 120–210 60–120 60–90 NA315–25 NA
% specific/nonspecific modality 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA NA 100/NA NA
Method Cont Cont Int. and comp NA Int NA
Work Interval duration (min) NA NA 8–10 NA 2–4 NA
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 6–11 NA 6–12 NA
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA 1–2 (NA) NA 0:15–2 NA
Work-to-rest ratio 7–4:1 2–1.3:1
Passive or active recoveries Both Passive NA
Triathlon—running
AWD (min·session−1) 60–120 45–90 30–50 NAc15–20 NA
% specific/non-specific modality 100/NA 100/NA 100/NA NA 100/NA NA
Method Cont Cont Int. or comp. NA Int NA
Work Interval duration (min) NA NA 3–7 NA 2–4 NA
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 5–14 NA 4–8 NA
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA 1–1:30 (NA) NA 1–3 (NA) NA
Work-to-rest ratio 5–3:1 2–1.3:1
Passive or active recoveries Passive Passive
Triathlon—brick workouts
AWD (min·session−1)NA NA 75–100 60–80 NA NA
% specific/non-specific modality NA NA 100/NA 100/NA NA NA
Method NA NA Int. and/or cont. Int. and/or cont. NA NA
Work Interval duration (min) NA NA 1–7 1–3 NA NA
Total number of intervals per session NA NA 5–20 5–20 NA NA
Recoveries (min) between reps (sets) NA NA 0:15–1 0:15–1 NA NA
Work-to-rest ratio 7–4:1 4–3:1
Passive or active recoveries Passive Passive
Z intensity zone, AWD typical accumulated work duration, cont. continuous work, int. intervals, comp. competitions, R recoveries between rep-
etitions (and sets where stated), NA not applied
a “Pure” Z2 sessions are rarely applied, but parts of long slow distance may include Z2 work for technical purposes or terrain variations
b “Pure” Z1 swimming sessions are rarely applied by triathletes, but warmups and cool downs may include Z1 work
c “Pure” Z4 cycling or running sessions are rarely applied by triathletes, but these modalities are included in Z4 brick sessions. Note that the
loading factor organization presented here does not include training sessions during tapering periods or easy training weeks. Moreover, the
number of intervals can vary considerably within and between sports and intensity zones. Long-interval sessions typically consist of three to six
repetitions, while short-interval sessions consist of 15–25 repetitions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2944 E.Tønnessen et al.
training sessions, mixing intensity zones within sessions,
slight progressive intensity increases throughout the hard
session(s), adjustments of session models during altitude
training, and a preference towards passive instead of active
recoveries during interval sessions. Moreover, some com-
mon characteristics related to the coaches’ focus before,
during, and after the sessions are also present (Table5).
Although several consistent approaches were observed
in terms of training session organization and implementa-
tion, some sport-specific features were identified related to
planning and execution of training sessions (Table6). Differ-
ences in session models across sports are mainly explained
by competition-specific demands, seasonal considerations,
logistic factors, movement constraints for the modality, and
associated load-tolerance considerations.
4 Discussion
This is the first study to describe and compare training ses-
sion models across intensities and endurance sports. The
duration of LIT sessions varies substantially across sports,
ranging from 30min to 7h, mainly due to modality-specific
constraints and load tolerance considerations, while MIT
and HIT sessions differ less across sports and are mainly
conducted as intervals (or competitions) in specific modali-
ties. Overall, both MIT and HIT interval sessions are char-
acterized by a high AWD, a progressive increase in intensity
throughout the session, and a controlled rather than exhaus-
tive execution approach. In the following paragraphs, we
will discuss the quantitative and qualitative aspects of these
session models and potential underlying mechanisms in
more detail.
This study clearly demonstrates that LIT is the most pre-
scribed type of training session in elite endurance sport, in
line with previous studies based on quantification of training
performed [2, 7, 13, 14, 18, 22, 38]. Most LIT sessions are
prescribed and executed in Z1, interspersed with Z2 once-
to-twice per week, or as part of progressive Z1-sessions.
This distinct feature would not have been detected by the
commonly applied three-zone scale (LIT, MIT, and HIT),
emphasizing the advantage of a more categorized scale (e.g.,
a six-zone scale as in this study). In this context, it is impor-
tant to emphasize that elite endurance athletes have a broad
intensity range below the first lactate turn point compared
with recreational and moderately trained performers. This
makes the potential range of intensity and duration com-
binations within LIT larger for elite athletes and a more
important programming consideration for their coaches. One
might speculate that Z2 training costs too much for elite
endurance athletes, making them less recovered and poorer
prepared for the subsequent intensive sessions. Accord-
ing to several of the present coaches, Z2 training is mainly
implemented for technical reasons, as an effective force sig-
nature in the movement cycle sometimes requires a mini-
mum speed or power output. Some of the analyzed sports
perform LIT as long intervals to provide short intermissions
for nutrition/fueling, technical feedback, and lactate meas-
urements. However, since the latter intervals are quite long
and the intermittent recoveries are relatively short, such
sessions practically act as continuous LIT sessions from a
perceptual and physiological perspective. Similarly, terrain
variations in sports such as biathlon and XC-skiing make
LIT sessions more stochastic [39, 40]. The prevailing notion
is that most LIT sessions must be sufficiently easy to ensure
that the subsequent hard sessions can be conducted with suf-
ficient quality. LIT sessions have misguidedly been termed
“recovery workouts” by several practitioners over the years
[22], suggesting that these sessions do not elicit adaptations
themselves but rather “accelerate” recovery prior to the next
hard session. We argue that this interpretation is erroneous
for two important reasons. First, the concept of any form
of recovery acceleration from an intervening workout lacks
support in the scientific literature, although the “low” load
of such sessions likely causes limited interference with the
ongoing recovery process. Second, frequent and voluminous
LIT is considered an important stimulus for inducing periph-
eral aerobic adaptations [41] and improving work economy
[42, 43]. At least three adaptive signaling pathways (through
which exercise of different intensities and durations can
impact protein composition of working muscle over time)
have well-demonstrated signaling roles, mediated through
specific kinases, and aggregated by the PGC1a gene [44].
The pathways triggered by high energy phosphate depletion
(i.e., large reductions in ATP/AMP ratio) and by elevated
production of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species both
show rapidly evolving feedback inhibition of signal ampli-
tude as signal mediated adaptations occur [45–47]. That is,
adaptive feedback inhibition reduces the adaptive return
from these pathways with repeated HIT bouts over time. In
contrast, it appears that elevated intracellular calcium con-
centration associated with the excitation-contraction cou-
pling process remain responsive across longer training time
frames due to greater potential for modulation via exercise
duration × intensity interaction, with essentially no feedback
inhibition of the primary signal within and across motor
units. Accordingly, it may seem that years of accumulated
wisdom among elite coaches is consistent with how different
signaling pathways coalesce to determine the overall adap-
tive enrichment of the endurance phenotype.
Notably, AWD for LIT sessions varies markedly, both
within and across sports. Within-sport differences are mainly
explained by session purpose (i.e., extra-long versus short,
long-slow distance), while between-sport differences were
explained by competition-specific demands, movement
constraints for the modality and associated load-tolerance
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2945
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
Table 5 Common session-model features across endurance sports
Common features Descriptions
Hard–easy rhythmicity Days of hard workouts (i.e., interval training or extra-long slow-distance sessions) are
systematically alternated with days of easy low-intensity training in between. Most
coaches advocate two to three hard training days (so called key sessions) per week
during the preparation period (e.g., Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays)
Double intensive sessions A total of 7 out of the 13 interviewed coaches practice double intensive sessions (i.e.,
intervals both in the morning and afternoon session of the same day). The main
purpose is to increase the total volume of intensive training while managing recov-
ery cycles and stress load. In long-distance running, swimming, and triathlon, this
approach is applied in Z3 sessions. Rowing and speed skating apply double intensive
sessions in Z4–6 to increase the amount of training around race pace
Cross-training Most sports apply cross-training (mainly in Z1) to achieve sufficient total train-
ing volume, although in varying degrees. Training sessions in Z3–5 are mainly
conducted in a specific modality, except for speed skating, XC skiing, and biathlon,
who perform cross-training systematically also at these intensities (only Z3 for speed
skating). A common notion among the coaches is that cross-training modality must
bear sufficient physiological and mechanical resemblances to the specific demands to
maximize the odds for positive adaptations
Few session models Most coaches apply a limited set of session models within each zone for predictability
and week-to-week calibration/control purposes
Mostly controlled, very few “all-out” sessions Very few hard sessions (competitions not included) across the annual cycle are
conducted to complete exhaustion, but rather with a “reps in reserve” approach. The
main purpose with this approach is to increase the accumulated working volume
at high (but not too high) intensities and ensure that the athletes are sufficiently
recovered for the next key session. All-out sessions (which are very similar to the
competition-specific demands) are only performed the last 3–6weeks prior to the
main competition of the macrocycle. Elite coaches seek sustainability and optimiza-
tion through session programming, not maximization
Progressive intensity increases throughout the session(s) Most hard sessions are performed with a slight progressive increase in intensity. The
difference between the first and last interval may be 0.5km/h during running inter-
vals and 10–25 W during cycling intervals. Similarly, continuous long-slow distance
sessions typically start at the lower end of the intensity zone, then gradually increase
to the mid or upper end of the zone as the session progresses
Combination of intensity zones Table1 presents the most used sessions models within each intensity zone. However,
the coaches also implement sessions that combine training intensities. Combinations
of Z1/2, Z3/4, and Z4/5 are most often applied
Altitude training Most coaches advocate altitude training. Altitude sessions are conducted with lower
speed/power output compared to sea-level sessions, leading to lower neuromuscular
loading. During altitude interval sessions (mainly Z3–4), the recovery periods tend
to be somewhat longer than corresponding sessions at sea level to avoid accumula-
tion of fatigue and keep the intensity at the desired level
Tapering strategies and easy weeks During tapering or easy training weeks, about 50% shorter session duration than those
presented in Table1 are advocated. The main intention with such sessions is to
decrease the cumulative effects of fatigue while maintaining fitness/capacity
Passive recoveries Most coaches apply passive recoveries between intervals. Active recoveries are mainly
used for training organization/logistic purposes
Coach’s focus prior to the session(s) The coaches spend considerable time on planning optimal sessions, often in coopera-
tion with the athletes. The training content of key sessions is typically presented
1–7days in advance to facilitate athletes’ mental preparations
Coach’s focus during the sessions(s) The main focus during interval sessions is to provide technical feedback/guidance,
modify training load variables when necessary, and assist the athletes with intensity
control (lactate samples, timing/power output assessments, etc.). Similar focus is
present on low-intensive sessions, although less frequent measurements for intensity
control purposes are applied. Lactate samples are considered more important than
speed/power output for developing the athletes’ inner feeling of intensity
Coach’s focus after the session(s) Most coaches practice debriefing and recapitulation of each session together with the
athlete(s) to pinpoint what worked well and features for improvements. The main
intention is to create an arena for learning and enhance training quality for subse-
quent sessions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2946 E.Tønnessen et al.
Table 6 Sport-specific features related to planning and execution of training sessions
Sport Specific features
Biathlon Biathletes perform considerable amounts of cross-training in the form of cycling and running, particularly during the preparation
period when access to snow is limited
The intensity demands during competitions vary according to terrain variations, and biathletes apply sub-techniques optimized
for different speed-incline combinations. Hence, most (roller) ski-interval sessions are conducted in competition-specific terrain
with combinations of intensity zones
Z1 sessions are mainly conducted in the lower part of the zone, particularly during running and cycling sessions. However, long-
slow distance sessions may drift to Z2 during uphill skiing to ensure proper technique
Interval sessions are often performed in combination with shooting during the recovery periods. Five intervals are often applied
to ensure equal amount of shooting in the standing and prone position. Here, warmup shots close to resting state are performed
in advance for preparation purposes
XC-skiing XC skiers perform considerable amounts of cross-training (e.g., running with or without poles on soft terrain during the prepara-
tion period where access to snow is limited)
The intensity demands during competitions vary according to terrain variations, and XC-skiers apply sub-techniques optimized
for different speed-incline combinations. Hence, most (roller) ski-interval sessions are conducted in competition-specific terrain
with
combinations of intensity zones
Z1 sessions are mainly conducted in the lower part of the zone, particularly during running sessions. However, long-slow dis-
tance sessions may drift to Z2 during uphill skiing to ensure proper technique
L-D running Long-distance runners generally apply shorter session models than other endurance sports (particularly Z1–3), and this is mainly
explained by the high mechanical loading demands
Much of the accumulated running kilometres in Z1–3 sessions is undertaken with cushioned shoes on forgiving surfaces (dirt
roads/forest paths) instead of paved roads to reduce mechanical loading and maximize training volume. The higher the inten-
sity, and the closer to the competition season, the more running sessions are undertaken on rubberized track with spike shoes
Cross-training sessions are mainly applied as alternative training during injury rehabilitation periods, but some athletes perform
cross-training sessions to cope with the high total training volume during the preparation period
Treadmill running sessions are preferred when weather/winter conditions are poor (rain, snow, ice) and for intensity control
(particularly during Z3 sessions)
Z1 sessions are mainly conducted in the upper part of the zone, and sometimes in Z2, to ensure proper running technique
Road cycling Because of the long competition duration, and the notion that cycling is a gentle locomotion modality with low injury risk (disre-
garding falls and crashes), most sessions are in the range 3–6h
Most intensive sessions are performed as competitions (most road cyclists compete 50–70days per year). However, each race is
characterized by a broad range of intensities, depending on the type of competition (mass starts versus time trials, single-day
races versus. stage races, hilly versus flat terrain, etc.) and role within the team (captain versus domestiques, climbers versus
sprinters, etc.)
Most of the remaining intensive training (beside competitions) is integrated in LIT sessions (e.g., cycling uphill or cycling with
reduced drag)
Rowing Considerable amounts of cross-training sessions in the form of cycling (summer) or XC-skiing (winter) are performed to achieve
sufficient total training volume. Moreover, warmups and cool downs in conjunction with (ergometer) rowing interval sessions
involve cycling or XC-skiing, depending on season
Speed training is integrated in rowing-specific long-slow distance or interval sessions 2–3 times per week to improve acceleration
or top speed
Speed skating Because an effective skating position is muscularly demanding over time (inducing local fatigue, back pain, etc.), long skating
sessions are challenging to perform. Moreover, the restricted access to ice in Norway during the summer season further reduces
the number of skating-specific sessions. Therefore, most low- and moderate-intensity sessions (Z1-3) consist of road cycling,
while most high-intensive sessions are performed on skates. The cycling training increases the tolerance for more frequent,
intensive, or longer skating sessions. Cycling is also preferred during warmups and cool down in conjunction with intensive
skating sessions to fully utilize the limited ice access and to provide an aerobic stimulus
Speed-skating intervals (Z4) are typically performed in small groups (mostly two to four but sometimes eight to ten athletes) to
reduce air drag and thereby increase the speed. However, competition-specific speed training (mainly Z5) is normally practiced
individually for intensity control purposes
Because speed-skating is muscularly demanding, longer interval recoveries are applied in speed-skating sessions compared to
corresponding sessions in other locomotion modalities and sports
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2947
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
considerations. The latter aspect is in line with Sandbakk
etal. [30], who recently developed a theoretical framework
for the impact of physiological and biomechanical mecha-
nisms associated with different locomotion modalities on
training load management in endurance exercise. According
to their theory, the combination of weight-bearing exercise
and rapid plyometric power production in long-distance run-
ning puts high loads on muscles and tendons during each
step, likely explaining why the duration of LIT sessions in
long-distance running is relatively low compared to most
other endurance sports. However, elite runners seem to com-
pensate for this “low” volume by training twice a day and
performing some of the LIT sessions in the upper range of
Z1, sometimes approaching Z2 [22].
Speed skating is also muscularly demanding but for other
reasons. The small angles in the hip and knee, in addition
to the static upper body position and long duty cycle of an
effective skating stroke, together induce intermittent blood-
flow restrictions in the working muscles [6, 48]. Hence,
speed skaters typically prefer cycling instead of the skating-
specific modality during LIT and MIT sessions, as well as
for warmups and cool downs. Nils van der Poel, double gold
medalist in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, followed this
approach to the extreme with 6–7h rides on the bike five
times per week during preparation training and considerable
amounts of MIT cycling in the subsequent phase [49].
Road cyclists perform longer but fewer training sessions
compared with the other sports. The preference for and
tolerance of voluminous road cycling sessions can mainly
be explained by the concentric only and nonweight bear-
ing loading, the long-duration competition format, and the
fact that cyclists draft behind teammates/competitors and
coast downhill in substantial parts of the sessions. Care-
ful examination of elite cyclists reveals that 10–20% of all
cycling sessions are spent at a power output < 0.75 W/kg
[10]. While a runner absorbs a huge mechanical load when
running downhill, a cyclist coasting downhill is normally
resting the active musculature.
Swimming also involves nonweight-bearing exercise and
low contraction velocity movement [30]. Swimmers perform
shorter LIT sessions than road cyclists. To obtain a relatively
high training volume, these athletes seem to compensate by
consistently swimming twice a day, with the first session
performed in the early morning. This approach can at least
partly be explained by restricted access to swimming halls
in the middle of the day, as school swimming is generally
prioritized by local authorities. Interestingly, in contrast
to their high-volume training, most swimming events are
Table 6 (continued)
Sport Specific features
Swimming Interval training is performed across all intensity zones, and continuous work is rarely applied. However, the interval recover-
ies in Z1-2 sessions are very short, so such sessions bare great resemblances to continuous, long-slow distance sessions. The
application of low-intensive interval sessions is mainly for nutrition/fuelling purposes, providing technical feedback, and taking
lactate measurements
Crawl is the main stroke for long-distance swimmers during practically all moderate- to high-intensive sessions. Other strokes
may be used during Z1-2 work, but never constituting more than 30–40% of the total swimming time. The closer to the compe-
tition season, the higher the proportion of crawl swimming
Special equipment (e.g., boards, zoomers and paddles) is sometimes used during Z1-2 sessions for technical development pur-
poses, to increase stroke power output, or to reduce the load during low-intensive swimming
Separate Z1-2 leg sets are sometimes conducted for technical development purposes or development of aerobic capacity
Running is occasionally used at cross-training in Z1 and Z3 sessions during the preparation period, but also as warmup to swim-
ming sessions
To avoid logistic challenges in crowded pools, swimmers apply “slot times” instead of recovery times (e.g., athlete 1 starts at
0:00, 1:00, 2:00, etc., while athlete 2 starts at 0:15, 1:15, 2:15min)
“Broken” is a common method for Z5-intervals. Here, the competition discipline (e.g., 800 or 1500m) is broken down to shorter
intervals (e.g., 100m). The aim is to swim the intervals at race pace with short recovery periods in between. The closer to the
competition season, the shorter the recovery periods
Triathlon Because triathlon consists of swimming, road cycling and running, combined sessions (so called brick workouts) are frequently
applied to manage modality transitions. Swimming/cycling or cycling/running are combined for physiological adaptation
purposes and efficient change of equipment, footwear and outfit. Moreover, athletes try out fuel/nutrition intake during such
sessions to optimize individual competition routines
The cycling part of the triathlon competition consists of many tight turns, accompanied with decelerations and subsequent accel-
erations. To cope with these demands, cycling intervals are implemented with brief (5–10s) sprints every 1–2min to simulate
the competition-specific situation
It is considered crucial to be up near the front in the initial swimming part of the triathlon competitions, as it costs a lot of energy
to pass competitors in a crowded open-water swim. Hence, elite triathletes practice fast starts in many swimming interval ses-
sions. For example, the first 25m of each 100m interval are at considerably faster than race pace, while the remaining 75m of
each interval are conducted at race pace
Brick workouts are designed to simulate competition-specific demands. Because the competition-specific intensity is between Z3
and 4, most brick sessions are performed at the same intensity. Hence, brick sessions in Z3 and 4 do not differ considerably
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2948 E.Tønnessen et al.
dramatically shorter in duration compared with road cycling
and most other traditional endurance sport events.
Rowing also involves nonweight-bearing and low contrac-
tion velocity movement, but the injury risk of overloaded
back and ribs, particularly with modern “cleaver” rowing
blades, has led rowers to implement a larger proportion of
LIT as cross-training [30]. In XC skiing and biathlon, the
athletes distribute training time across varying sub-tech-
niques while skiing on snow or using roller skis [7, 8, 25,
26]. However, the best athletes do not perform longer LIT
sessions than cyclists, rowers, or swimmers. This can be
explained by the moderately high muscular loads of skiing
uphill, in addition to the strong focus on and accompanying
strain associated with maintaining effective technique (and
appropriate switching between multiple subtechniques) in
complex movements [30].
This study shows that many of the best practitioners
within endurance sports supplement their LIT sessions in
the specific modalities with cross-training, in line with pre-
vious studies [1, 7, 8, 25]. The application of cross-training
differs substantially across sports, not only for movement
constraints and associated load management but also for sea-
sonal reasons. Because of the limited access to snow during
the summer, XC skiers and biathletes perform many run-
ning and cycling sessions, respectively. Likewise, rowers
execute numerous land-based sessions as running, cycling,
or XC skiing (perhaps a distinctly Norwegian cross-training
modality) during the winter. Other supporting arguments
for cross-training in research literature include injury pre-
vention, general central capacity effects and prevention of
training monotony [50, 51]. A plausible question within this
context is whether long-distance runners should compensate
for their “low” volume (compared with the other analyzed
sports) by adding more cross-training sessions to maxi-
mize the training stimulus with lower muscular-mechanical
load. However, a common notion among the interviewed
coaches was that cross-training modality must bear suf-
ficient physiological and mechanical resemblances to the
specific demands to maximize the odds for positive adapta-
tions (Table5), in line with the principle of specificity [52].
Alternative locomotion modalities for runners (e.g., cycling
and XC skiing) are less used (in most cases limited to injury
rehabilitation processes) and may be too removed from the
specific demands, increasing the odds for maladaptations.
Running is also unique among endurance sports in that cycle
frequency/cadence does not and cannot be manipulated very
much across a broad range of intensities/speeds. More spe-
cifically, the cadence may only increase 10% from LIT to
HIT for a distance runner. For a rower or kayak paddler,
cadence can vary at least twofold from Z1 to Z5, with the
force signature maintained relatively stable. These issues
may partly explain why cross-training in long-distance run-
ning mainly is restricted to injury rehabilitation processes.
Overall, the underlying mechanism of cross-training remains
poorly understood, and future longitudinal studies should
aim to explore the training transfer efficiency of varying
types of cross-training.
Based on the large variations in LIT session duration
across the analyzed sports in this study, it is reasonable to
question well-established training load assessment tools
such as training impulse (TRIMP) and session rating of per-
ceived exertion (session RPE). While these concepts only
take training volume and intensity into account [53–55], it
seems clear that the choice of exercise modality influences
effort beyond commonly applied external and internal load
measurements. We argue that these methods are not valid
for comparisons of training load across exercise modalities,
for example, by comparing sports or when comparing the
load across different modalities. Foster etal. [56] have also
indicated that session RPE is mode dependent, but more
studies are warranted to verify this feature.
Intensive sessions in the form of MIT and HIT are con-
sidered fundamental for performance progression by all the
participating coaches in this study, and the planning and
implementation of training are mainly centered around such
key sessions. Most MIT sessions are performed as inter-
vals, although several sports also apply continuous work.
Competitions account for parts of MIT or as elements of
LIT, and the stochasticity of many competition formats
such as cycling and XC skiing results in some intensity
undulation. A specific feature for triathlon is the applica-
tion of combined modalities (so-called brick workouts),
where swimming/cycling or cycling/running are frequently
applied during MIT sessions to manage modality transi-
tions. Overall, the analyzed sports implement considerably
more MIT than HIT sessions across the annual cycle. This
strategy has been a part of the training philosophy in sev-
eral Norwegian endurance sports over the last two decades
[57]. Here, a fundamental feature is the application of dou-
ble threshold sessions (i.e., both morning and afternoon)
twice a week, with blood lactate concentrations in the range
2–4.5mmol/L. Marius Bakken, a former Norwegian 5000m
record holder (13:06min) is considered the originator of this
concept, and he has argued that Z3 intervals (particularly
microintervals lasting only 45–60s) allow for accumulation
of work at faster and more race relevant running speeds than
continuous training in the same lactate-based zone, without
the negative consequences of HIT in the form of fatigue
and subsequent recovery [57]. Half of the coaches in this
study and numerous elite coaches worldwide have adopted
double threshold sessions in their weekly preparation train-
ing, representing a novelty in the current training of elite
endurance runners.
The HIT sessions presented in this study are mainly con-
ducted as intervals, although competitions constitute a sub-
stantial part of most sports. In road cycling, elements of HIT
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2949
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
are conducted during LIT sessions. In triathlon, Z4 sessions
are often conducted as brick workouts. Overall, a common
and logical trend across all sports is that interval times and
accumulated working duration for interval sessions decrease
with increasing intensity. Recovery time between intervals
depends on interval time and intensity, but we observed a
clear trend towards lower work-to-rest ratio with increas-
ing intensity. The variations in MIT and HIT session design
across sports can mainly be explained by corresponding
movement constraints and load management considerations
as explained previously for LIT sessions, although the dif-
ferences between sports diminish with increasing training
intensity.
Ever since the first studies on interval training were pub-
lished in the 1960s [58, 59], a plethora of research has been
devoted to this topic. Interestingly, the best practice interval
sessions described in the present paper differ considerably
from most of the models tested in previous intervention
studies that are the building blocks of current established
scientific recommendations [20, 31, 60]. First, our analyzed
sports perform interval sessions across a considerably wider
intensity range compared with research literature. Compre-
hensive and highly cited review papers recommend athletes
to reach at least 90% of their maximal oxygen uptake during
interval sessions (or ≥ 95% of the minimal velocity/power
that elicits maximal oxygen uptake) to elicit both maximal
cardiovascular and peripheral adaptations [20, 31, 60]. Sec-
ondly, AWD for interval sessions is also considerably lower
in most scientific studies [31, 60] than those presented here.
Fundamentally, elite coaches use AWD to adjust both stimu-
lus and progression “between” intensity adjustments (stair-
step model) far more than most recreational athletes and
researchers, who emphasize mainly intensity as a “lever” for
managing the HIT prescription. Third, the observed trend
towards lower work-to-rest ratio with increasing intensity
has not previously been established in scientific studies.
However, the predominant application of passive recover-
ies is in line with recommendations from research literature,
as active recoveries can lower muscle oxygenation, impair
phosphocreatine resynthesis and, thereby, trigger anaerobic
system engagement during the following effort [31].
Another notable finding from this study is that very few
interval sessions are performed to the point of power or
pace “failure.” Instead, these sessions are characterized by
an even pacing across bouts or even a small but progressive
increase in intensity (crossing through, for example, upper
Z3 to upper Z4), a semiexhausting effort and high AWD.
Importantly, maintaining good technique (i.e., avoiding tech-
nical collapse and “floundering” near the end of work bouts)
is emphasized. Some intervention studies have applied
intervals with maximal sustainable work intensity, aim-
ing to achieve the highest possible average speed or power
(so called “maximum session effort” or isoeffort approach)
[61–63]. The interviewed coaches argue that such an all-out
approach is not sustainable over time for several reasons.
In a short-term perspective, an all-out session execution
approach can lead to an undesired and poorly timed peak-
ing response (provided that the recoveries between such hard
sessions are sufficient). In a long-time perspective, an all-out
approach limits the accumulated load of MIT and HIT due
to shorter work time in single sessions and longer recovery
time after sessions. Concurrently, this increases the odds
for overtraining and burnout due to the physical and mental
strain associated with such sessions. The best practition-
ers are, therefore, especially cautious not to overuse all-out
intensive sessions or introduce them too early in the annual
cycle [7, 16, 22, 25, 35], a notion in line with traditional
periodization thinking [64]. Alternatively, controlled and
semiexhausting interval sessions may effectively stimulate
adaptation through the interaction between high intensity
and larger accumulated work that can be achieved before
the onset of fatigue, compared with an all-out approach [61,
65–67].
All the key informant coaches in this study consider train-
ing quality highly important for performance development.
Here, “quality” is not synonymous with “intensity” as often
seen in popular science literature. Instead, training quality
is defined as the degree of excellence related to how the
training sessions are executed to optimize adaptations and/
or improve overall performance [33, 69]. This includes the
ability to optimize processes that affect the execution of
training sessions in relation to the intended purpose. Inten-
sity discipline in relation to the training prescription is an
example of this quality emphasis observed at the elite level.
Training quality can be developed and fine-tuned over time
through optimal application of monitoring tools and good
communication among the athlete, coach, and supporting
staff. Obtained information related to readiness, exercise
load, and recovery state form a basis for subsequent decision
making [69], and this is continuously subject to improve-
ment through a circular learning process where planning,
execution and debriefing/evaluation are the fundamental
stages [33, 68]. The present coaches describe a culture of
continuous learning and development through constructive
interactions with the athletes.
Although this study has described a variety of session
models across sports, the best practitioners tend to apply
a limited set of session models within each zone. In this
way, each key session acts as a test where heart rate, blood
lactate concentration, speed/power output, and perceived
fatigue/exertion can be compared from week to week. The
principle of control is a fundamental feature of elite sport
to determine whether athletes adapt to the training, identify
individual responses, monitor fatigue and accompanying
need for recovery, and minimize the probability of nonfunc-
tional overreaching, illness and injury [55, 70]. It is also
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2950 E.Tønnessen et al.
reasonable to assume that implementation of well-known
sessions increases the likelihood for increased training qual-
ity. Interestingly, all coaches have primarily adjusted their
training session models to the individual athlete and sport-
specific demands, rather than based solely on sex, as previ-
ously described more generally [71].
A distinct feature across all the analyzed sports in this
study is the alternating rhythmicity of hard and easy work-
outs. The legendary track and field coach Bill Bowerman
popularized this concept in the 1960s [22]. This was also
a fundamental feature of Matveyev’s traditional periodi-
zation model founded at the same time [64], with strong
links to the principle of stimulus and response (also known
as the overcompensation or training adaptation principle).
That is, training stress leads to acute fatigue and damage to
physiological structures, and during the subsequent restitu-
tion phase, the organism does not only return to the original
condition but overcompensates to be better prepared for the
next stress. The larger the training stress, the longer the res-
titution time required [72]. Importantly, many of the coaches
regard the training day (not only each session) as the unit of
stress being managed. Therefore, amplifying the intensive
load during a planned “high stress” training day is more
sustainable than adding an additional high stress training day
to the microcycle. MIT and HIT both induce high stress, par-
ticularly given the high absolute intensities and associated
metabolic flux of elite performers, combined with the AWD
that is prescribed and executed. The present study, together
with other recently published studies, shows that consecu-
tive hard training days rarely occur and that the hard–easy
rhythmicity also holds true for today’s elite endurance prac-
titioners [7, 16, 22, 25, 35]. Hard and easy sessions seem to
stimulate a complex set of overlapping and complementary
adaptations [73, 74], justifying the systematic training inten-
sity variation for performance development in endurance
sports. Overall, we would argue that elite coaches use this
day-to-day rhythmicity to carefully manage and, to a sub-
stantial extent, “polarize” training stress, not work intensity,
to ensure that recovery is achieved. Elite coaching is about
managing the systemic cost of maintaining a high training
frequency and volume, and thereby a high adaptive signal.
Across sports, the success of these elite coaches is quanti-
fied in terms of long-term thinking and “staying healthy and
being able to do the work required for success.”
Some study limitations should be acknowledged. First,
it is likely that the present results are influenced by a Nor-
wegian “group culture” bias, and other roads may also
lead to Rome. Although the key informants in this study
have coached numerous world-leading athletes, they have
also applied the same training system to several other less
successful athletes. Moreover, the intensity scale outlined
here (Table2) has been used by Norwegian elite endur-
ance athletes over the last two decades. Previous studies
have presented several arguments to explain why standard-
ized intensity zone systems are imperfect tools [2, 16, 22,
37]. Slight inconsistencies in AWD within the same zone
can be observed when comparing present findings with
previous studies [16, 22]. Inconsistencies across studies
are expected because (1) the intensive zones are “narrow”
(i.e., small differences in heart rate, blood lactate and
RPE), and (2) MIT/HIT sessions tend to overlap inten-
sity zones. Although intensity scales can be criticized for
several reasons, we argue that the potential error sources
are outweighed by the improved communication among
practitioners that a common scale facilitates.
Finally, we do not believe Norwegian athletes are “phys-
iologically biased” towards a genotype that is uniquely
responsive to the training characteristics described here.
More likely, the Norwegian endurance sport success is
grounded on a culture which includes an appreciation for
“endurance.” Norwegian champions often describe an active
childhood that included lots of hiking, skiing, cycling, etc.,
just as a function of living. So, relative to the size of the
country, we could argue that a large fraction of Norwegian
children has good local conditions for (1) sampling a variety
of endurance sports and (2) meeting local coaches with a
good understanding of the endurance training process.
5 Conclusions
The unique training session templates presented here are
derived from world-leading coaches, whose athletes have
won more than 350 medals in international championships.
Overall, large variations in session loading factors were
observed across sports, although the differences diminish
with increasing intensity. AWD for LIT sessions ranges from
approximately 30min to 7h, with differences being mainly
explained by modality-specific constraints and accompany-
ing consequences for load tolerance. For the same reasons, in
addition to seasonal considerations, several sports perform
large amounts of LIT using cross training. Intensive sessions
(MIT and HIT) are considered paramount for performance
progression by all coaches, and all sports perform consider-
ably more MIT than HIT sessions across the annual cycle.
Although most intensive sessions are conducted as inter-
vals, competitions also account for a large proportion. Best
practice interval sessions are characterized by a controlled,
nonall-out approach, high AWD, and a slight progressive
increase in intensity throughout. We also observed a trend
towards lower work-to-rest ratio with increasing intensity.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2951
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
Acknowledgements The authors want to thank the participating
coaches for their valuable contributions, inputs, and willingness to
share knowledge during the process.
Declarations
Funding Open access funding provided by Kristiania University Col-
lege.
Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of Data and Materials All data and materials support the
published claims and comply with field standards. To protect the ano-
nymity of the key informants, as well as their athletes, the transcribed
interviews cannot be made publicly available.
Ethics Approval The study followed the institutional requirements and
was pre-approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (refer-
ence #605672).
Consent to Participate Prior to the study, the coaches provided a writ-
ten informed consent to participate.
Consent for Publication All respondents approved the submitted ver-
sion of the manuscript for publication.
Code Availability Not applicable.
Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were
performed by Espen Tønnessen and Øyvind Sandbakk. The first draft
of the manuscript was written by Thomas Haugen and all authors com-
mented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript. As the authors of this study, we assert
that our background provides a high level of expertise and experience
in both scientific research and coaching practice arenas, enhancing
the qualitative interpretation of these data. Our experience spans over
30years, during which we have closely collaborated with world-class
endurance coaches and athletes, both within the Norwegian Olympic
Federation (Olympiatoppen) and various national sports federations.
This hands-on involvement includes conducting training analyses
alongside coaches, actively participating in training camps, and closely
observing the day-to-day practices of top athletes. Additionally, many
of us were involved in the development of Olympiatoppen's training
diary, intensity scale, and test protocols – all crucial tools in athlete
performance tracking. Moreover, we have published more than 150
articles in the field of endurance sports, demonstrating our in-depth
understanding of the subject. We contend that this experience uniquely
qualifies us to collect and interpret the data presented here.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS. Training and performance character-
istics among Norwegian international rowers 1970–2001. Scand
J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14:303–10.
2. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds, and long slow dis-
tance: the role of intensity and duration in endurance training.
Sportscience. 2009;13:32–53.
3. Guellich A, Seiler S, Emrich E. Training methods and intensity
distribution of young world-class rowers. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2009;4:448–60.
4. Bourgois J, Steyaert A, Boone J. Physiological and anthropo-
metric progression in an international oarsman: a 15-year case
study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:723–6.
5. Steinacker JM, Lormes W, Lehmann M, Altenburg D. Training
of rowers before world championships. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1998;30:1158–63.
6. Orie J, Hofman N, de Koning JJ, Foster C. Thirty-eight years of
training distribution in Olympic speed skaters. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2014;9:93–9.
7. 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.
8. Sandbakk Ø, Holmberg HC. Physiological capacity and train-
ing routines of elite cross-country skiers: Approaching the
upper limits of human endurance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2017;12:1003–11.
9. Svendsen IS, Tønnesen E, Tjelta LI, Ørn S. Training, perfor-
mance, and physiological predictors of a successful elite senior
career in junior competitive road cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2018;13:1287–92.
10. van Erp T, Sanders D, de Koning JJ. Training characteristics of
male and female professional road cyclists: a 4-year retrospective
analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;4:534–40.
11. Gallo G, Mateo-March M, Gotti D, Faelli E, Ruggeri P, Codella
R, Filipas L. How do world class top 5 Giro d’Italia finishers
train? A qualitative multiple case study. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2022;32:1738–46.
12. Gallo G, Mateo-March M, Gotti D, Maunder E, Codella R, Rug-
geri P, Faelli E, Filipas L. The weekly periodization of top 5 Tour
de France general classification finishers: a multiple case study.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18:1313–20.
13. 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. 2021;35:2525–31.
14. Casado A, González-Mohíno F, González-Ravé JM, Foster C.
Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and vol-
ume in highly trained and elite distance runners: A systematic
review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17:820–33.
15. Tjelta LI. The training of international level distance runners. Int
J Sports Sci Coach. 2016;11:122–34.
16. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Enoksen E, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Cross-
ing the golden divide: the science and practice of training world-
class 800- and 1500-m runners. Sports Med. 2021;51:1835–54.
17. Hellard P, Avalos-Fernandes M, Lefort G, Pla R, Mujika I, Tous-
saint JF, Pyne DB. Elite swimmers’ training patterns in the 25
weeks prior to their season’s best performances: Insights into
periodization from a 20-years cohort. Front Physiol. 2019;10:363.
18. González-Ravé JM, Hermosilla F, González-Mohíno F, Casado
A, Pyne DB. Training intensity distribution, training volume, and
periodization models in elite swimmers: a systematic review. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16:913–26.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2952 E.Tønnessen et al.
19. Pollock S, Gaoua N, Johnston MJ, Cooke K, Girard O, Mileva
KN. Training regimes and recovery monitoring practices of elite
British swimmers. J Sports Sci Med. 2019;18:577–85.
20. Billat V. Interval training for performance: a scientific and empiri-
cal practice: special recommendations for middle- and long-
distance running. Part I: aerobic interval training. Sports Med.
2001;1:13–31.
21. Kenneally M, Casado A, Gomez-Ezeiza J, Santos-Concejero J.
Training intensity distribution analysis by race pace vs. physi-
ological approach in world-class middle- and long-distance run-
ners. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021;21:819–26.
22. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training and
development of world-class long-distance running performance:
an integration of scientific and best practice literature. Sports Med
Open. 2022;8:46.
23. Enoksen E, Tjelta AR, Tjelta LI. Distribution of training volume
and intensity of elite male and female track and marathon runners.
Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2011;6:273–93.
24. Torvik PØ, Solli GS, Sandbakk Ø. The training characteristics of
world-class male long-distance cross-country skiers. Front Sports
Act Living. 2021;3: 641389.
25. Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Sandbakk Ø. The training characteristics
of the world’s most successful female cross-country skier. Front
Physiol. 2017;8:1069.
26. Sandbakk Ø, Holmberg HC. A reappraisal of success factors
for Olympic cross-country skiing. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2014;9:117–21.
27. Mujika I. Olympic preparation of a world-class female triathlete.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:727–31.
28. Cejuela R, Sellés-Pérez S. Road to Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games:
Training characteristics of a world class male triathlete. Front
Physiol. 2022;13: 835705.
29. Cejuela R, Selles-Perez S. Training characteristics and perfor-
mance of two male elite short-distance triathletes: From junior to
“world-class.” Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023;33:2444–56.
30. Sandbakk Ø, Haugen T, Ettema G. The influence of exercise
modality on training load management. Int J Sports Physiol Perf.
2021;16:605–8.
31. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval training, solu-
tions to the programming puzzle: Part I: cardiopulmonary empha-
sis. Sports Med. 2013;43:313–38.
32. Haugen T. Best practice coaches: an untapped resource in sport
science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perf. 2021;16:1215–6.
33. Bucher Sandbakk S, Walther J, Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Haugen T.
Training quality—what is it and how can we improve it? Invited
commentary. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18:557–60.
34. Greatest Sporting Nation. The quest for the best. Retrieved from
https:// great estsp ortin gnati on. com/. Accessed 1 Dec 2023.
35. 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.
36. Sylta O, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. From heart-rate data to training
quantification: a comparison of 3 methods of training-intensity
analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:100–7.
37. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration
distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2010;5:276–91.
38. Casado A, Hanley B, Ruiz-Pérez LM. Deliberate practice in train-
ing differentiates the best Kenyan and Spanish long-distance run-
ners. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020;20:887–95.
39. Noordhof DA, Danielsson ML, Skovereng K, Danielsen J, Seeberg
TM, Haugnes P, Kocbach J, Ettema G, Sandbakk ØB. The dynam-
ics of the anaerobic energy contribution during a simulated mass-
start competition while roller-ski skating on a treadmill. Front
Sports Act Living. 2021;3: 695052.
40. Haugnes P, Kocbach J, Luchsinger H, Ettema G, Sandbakk Ø.
The interval-based physiological and mechanical demands
of cross-country ski training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2019;14:1371–7.
41. Bishop D, Botella J, Grantha C. CrossTalk opposing view:
exercise training volume is more important than training inten-
sity to promote increases in mitochondrial content. J Physiol.
2019;597:4115–8.
42. 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.
43. Nelson RC, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of distance running: a lon-
gitudinal study. Res Q. 1976;47:417–28.
44. Hoppeler H. Molecular networks in skeletal muscle plasticity. J
Exp Biol. 2016;219:205–13.
45. Granata C, Oliveira RSF, Little JP, Bishop DJ. Forty high-inten-
sity interval training sessions blunt exercise-induced changes in
the nuclear protein content of PGC-1α and p53 in human skele-
tal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020;318:E224–36.
46. Granata C, Jamnick NA, Bishop DJ. Principles of exercise pre-
scription, and how they influence exercise-induced changes of
transcription factors and other regulators of mitochondrial bio-
genesis. Sports Med. 2018;48:1541–59.
47. McConell GK, Lee-Young RS, Chen ZP, Stepto NK, Huynh NN,
Stephens TJ, Canny BJ, Kemp BE. Short-term exercise training
in humans reduces AMPK signalling during prolonged exercise
independent of muscle glycogen. J Physiol. 2005;568:665–76.
48. Foster C, Rundell KW, Snyder AC, Stray-Gundersen J, Kemk-
ers G, Thometz N, Broker J, Knapp E. Evidence for restricted
muscle blood flow during speed skating. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1999;31:1433–40.
49. van der Poel N. How to skate a 10k. Retrieved from https://
www. ho wto skate. se/_ files/ ugd/ e11bfe_ b7836 31375 f5432 48e27
1f440 bcd45 c5. pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2023.
50. Loy SF, Hoffmann JJ, Holland GJ. Benefits and practical use of
cross-training in sports. Sports Med. 1995;19:1–8.
51. Foster C, Hector LL, Welsh R, Schrager M, Green MA, Snyder
AC. Effects of specific versus cross-training on running perfor-
mance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70:367–72.
52. Sale D, MacDougall D. Specificity in strength training: a review
for the coach and athlete. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1981;6:87–92.
53. Banister EW. Modeling elite athletic performance. In: MacDou-
gall JD, Wenger HA, Green HJ, editors. Physiological testing
of the high performance athlete. 2nd ed. Champaign: Human
Kinetics Books; 1991. p. 403–24.
54. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R. Ath-
letic performance in relation to training load. Wis Med J.
1996;95:370–4.
55. Foster C, Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, de Koning JJ. Monitoring train-
ing loads: the past, the present, and the future. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2017;12:22–8.
56. Foster C, Boullosa D, McGuigan M, Fusco A, Cortis C, Arney
BE, Orton B, Dodge C, Jaime S, Radtke K, van Erp T, de Koning
JJ, Bok D, Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Porcari JP. 25 years of session
rating of perceived exertion: Historical perspective and develop-
ment. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16:612–21.
57. Casado A, Foster C, Bakken M, Tjelta LI. Does lactate-guided
threshold interval training within a high-volume low-intensity
approach represent the “next step” in the evolution of distance
running training? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:3782.
58. Astrand I, Astrand PO, Christensen EH, Hedman R. Intermittent
muscular work. Acta Physiol Scand. 1960;48:448–53.
59. Christensen EH, Hedman R, Saltin B. Intermittent and continuous
running. Acta Physiol Scand. 1960;50:269–78.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2953
Best Practice Training Session Models in Endurance Sports
60. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval training, solu-
tions to the programming puzzle. Part II: anaerobic energy,
neuromuscular load and practical applications. Sports Med.
2013;43:927–54.
61. Seiler S, Joranson K, Olesen BV, Hetlelid KJ. Adaptations to aero-
bic interval training: interactive effects of exercise intensity and
total work duration. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:74–83.
62. Sylta Ø, Tønnessen E, Hammarström D, Danielsen J, Skovereng
K, Ravn T, Rønnestad BR, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S. The effect of
different high-intensity periodization models on endurance adap-
tations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48:2165–74.
63. Rønnestad BR, Hansen J, Nygaard H, Lundby C. Superior per-
formance improvements in elite cyclists following short-interval
vs effort-matched long-interval training. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2020;30:849–57.
64. Matveyev LP. Fundamentals of sport training. Moscow: Progress
Publishers; 1981.
65. Hawley JA, Myburgh KH, Noakes TD, Dennis SC. Training tech-
niques to improve fatigue resistance and enhance endurance per-
formance. J Sports Sci. 1997;15:325–33.
66. Stepto NK, Hawley JA, Dennis SC, Hopkins WG. Effects of differ-
ent interval-training programs on cycling time-trial performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:736–41.
67. Yu M, Stepto NK, Chibalin AV, Fryer LG, Carling D, Krook A,
Hawley JA, Zierath JR. Metabolic and mitogenic signal transduc-
tion in human skeletal muscle after intense cycling exercise. J
Physiol. 2003;546:327–35.
68. Haugen T, Tønnessen E, Bucher Sandbakk S, Sandbakk O. Train-
ing quality - an unexplored domain within sport science. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18:221–2.
69. Boullosa D, Claudino JG, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Bok D, Loturco
I, Stults-Kolehmainen M, García-López J, Foster C. The fine-tun-
ing approach for training monitoring. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2023;18:1374–9.
70. Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, Gastin P, Kellmann M,
Varley MC, Gabbett TJ, Coutts AJ, Burgess DJ, Gregson W, Cable
NT. Monitoring athlete training loads: Consensus statement. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:2161–70.
71. Bucher Sandbakk S, Tønnessen E, Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø. Should
female and male endurance athletes train or be coached differently
on their road to gold? Perceptions among accomplished elite ath-
lete coaches. German J Sports Med. 2022;73:251–7.
72. Yakovlev NN. Biochemistry of sport in the Soviet Union:
beginning, development, and present status. Med Sci Sports.
1975;7:237–47.
73. Laursen PB. Training for intense exercise performance: High-
intensity or high-volume training? Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2010;20:1–10.
74. Talsnes RK, van den Tillaar R, Sandbakk Ø. Effects of increased
load of low- versus high-intensity endurance training on perfor-
mance and physiological adaptations in endurance athletes. Int J
Sports Physiol Perf. 2022;17:216–25.
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 Jun 10, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
