Training intensity distribution analysis by race pace vs. physiological approach in world-class middle- and long-distance runners

Abstract

This study aimed to analyse the training intensity distribution (TID) of a group of 7 world-class middle- and long-distance runners over 50 weeks using two different approaches to organise TID zones: (1) based on individual specific race pace and; (2) based on physiological parameters. Analysed training data included training volume, intensity and frequency. The average weekly volume for the group was 135.4 ± 29.4 km·week⁻¹. Training volumes for Z1, Z2 and Z3 were 88.5 ± 1.1%, 7.4 ± 0.8% and 4.1 ± 0.7% respectively for race-pace based approach, and 87.2 ± 1.2%, 6.1 ± 0.7% and 6.6 ± 0.9% respectively for the physiological approach. Differences were found between the approaches in Z2 (large effect, ES = 1.20) and Z3 (moderate effect, ES = 0.93). The approach based on race-pace zones produced pyramidal distributions in both middle- and long-distance runners across all phases of the season. The physiological approach produced polarised and pyramidal distributions depending of the phase of the season in the middle-distance runners, and pyramidal type TID across all phases of the season in the long-distance runners. The results of this study demonstrate that the training analysis in a world-class group of runners shows different TID when assessed relative to race pace versus to physiological zones. This highlights a potential deficiency in training analysis and prescription methods which do not make reference to specific performance. An approach which makes reference to both physiological and performance measures may allow for a more consistent and logical analysis.

Keywords:

• Endurance
• polarised training
• threshold training
• pyramidal training
• running performance

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank the athletes and coach (Nic Bideau) participating in this study for their generosity in supporting the research efforts employed to conduct it.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).