International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

ISSN: 2474-8668 (Print) 1474-8185 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20

How do recreational endurance runners warm-up

and cool-down? A descriptive study on the use of
continuous runs

Felipe García-Pinillos, Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo, Luis E. Roche-Seruendo,

Víctor M. Soto-Hermoso & Pedro Á. Latorre-Román

To cite this article: Felipe García-Pinillos, Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo, Luis E. Roche-Seruendo,

Víctor M. Soto-Hermoso & Pedro Á. Latorre-Román (2019): How do recreational endurance
runners warm-up and cool-down? A descriptive study on the use of continuous runs, International
Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1566846

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1566846

Published online: 20 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT
https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1566846

How do recreational endurance runners warm-up and

cool-down? A descriptive study on the use of continuous runs
Felipe García-Pinillos a, Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo b, Luis E. Roche-Seruendoc,
Víctor M. Soto-Hermosod and Pedro Á. Latorre-Románe
a
Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile;
b
Laboratory of Human Performance; Quality of Life and Wellness Research Group; Department of Physical
Activity Sciences, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile; cDepartment of Physiotherapy, San Jorge
University, Zaragoza, Spain; dDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences,
University of Granada, Granada, Spain; eUniversity of Jaen, Department of Corporal Expression, Jaen, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed at examining the presence of running-based exer- Received 2 November 2018
cises in the warm-up and cool-down routines for recreational endur- Accepted 6 January 2019
ance runners and to determine the training volume (i.e. time and KEYWORDS
distance) orientated to warm-up and cool-down. Recreational endur- Warm-up; cool-down;
ance runners filled a questionnaire through an online Google Docs, endurance runners; training
which consisted in 12 items referred to demographic information, monitoring; workload
athletic performance, training contents, warm-up and cool-down
routines. Five level groups were determined according to their per-
sonal best in a 10-km trial. Out of 1419 athletes, 80.6% were men and
19.4% were women. On average, participants trained 4.1 ± 1.6 ses-
sions per week, with a weekly mileage of 47.3 ± 17.5 km. The 70.5% of
participants always included continuous runs (CR) as a warm-up, with
an average duration of ~13 min, with longer duration in higher level
groups. Regarding the cool-down routines, 45.7% of the participants
always included CR as a cool-down, whereas 43.4% just after high-
intensity sessions. On average, participants spend ~7 min for cooling-
down, ~3 times per week, with greater volumes (in terms of duration
and frequency) in higher level groups. In summary, these data indi-
cate that an average endurance runner spends ~18% of his/her total
training time per week warming-up or cooling-down.

1. Introduction
The proliferation of recreational leisure-time sport activities have increased considerable,
especially in recent years (Borgers et al., 2015). Among these, running events appear
particularly popular (van Dyck, Cardon, de Bourdeaudhuij, de Ridder, & Willem, 2017).
For example, in just 11 years (from 2001 to 2012) the number of finishers at the 20 largest
road races rise from 866,000 to 1,594,000 (Scheerder, Breedveld, & Borgers, 2015).
Moreover, although the number of marathon events (and the popularity of some of
them – e.g. New York, Madrid) have increased considerably, the participation rise is special
important for shorter distances running events (e.g. 5–10 km) (van Dyck et al., 2017).

CONTACT Felipe García-Pinillos fegarpi@gmail.com Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation,
Universidad de La Frontera, Calle Uruguay, 1980, Temuco, Chile
© 2019 Cardiff Metropolitan University
2 F. GARCÍA-PINILLOS ET AL.

In order to improve the performance level, several training methods are usually incor-
porated into the endurance runners’ routines. These include high-intensity intermittent
training (HIIT), continuous high volume, low-intensity training (LIT), and its combination
in different proportions has been proved as effective in participates with a wide range of
fitness level (García-Pinillos, Soto-Hermoso, & Latorre-Román, 2016; Laursen, 2010;
Laursen & Jenkins, 2002; Tschakert & Hofmann, 2013; Zapata-Lamana et al., 2018). Such
training approaches induce some physiological and biomechanical adaptations related to
improved running performance (Coyle, 1995), including central (e.g. cardiac) and periph-
eral (i.e. skeletal muscle) adaptations (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013b, 2013a), contributing to
improved performance, in addition health (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013a, 2013b). However,
some training myths and disinformation among runners (Blagrove, Brown, Howatson, &
Hayes, 2017) may lead them towards inefficient and unhealthy training habits.
For example, although LIT is a key component of the training schedule among runners
(Esteve-Lanao, San Juan, Earnest, Foster, & Lucia, 2005; Seiler, 2010), strong evidence
suggests that a greater training distance per week is a risk factor for lower extremity running
injuries (van Gent et al., 2007). The incidence of running-related injuries on an annual basis is
high, occurring in 40–50% of runners (Fields, Sykes, Walker, & Jackson, 2010). Even though it
is widely accepted that injuries in endurance runners are multifactorial, it is also well known
that running-related injuries are often attributable to training errors (Nielsen, Buist, Sørensen,
Lind, & Rasmussen, 2012). Therefore, managing properly running volumes seems to be a key
point for both maximising athletic performance and minimising risk of injury. However, are
we being accurate enough for quantifying training volumes? Are coaches and athletes taking
continuous runs (CR) during warm-up and cool-down into consideration?
Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of running-based training pro-
grammes on athletic performance or physical fitness of endurance runners. Nevertheless, as
far as the authors know, no information is provided about warm-up nor cool-down
routines. For example, Esfarjani and Laursen (2007) underwent a 10-week intervention,
by combining LIT with HIIT or sprint interval training (SIT) in four sessions per week.
Similarly, Bangsbo, Gunnarsson, Wendell, Nybo, and Thomassen (2009) tested the effec-
tiveness of including SIT during a 9-week training programme in endurance runners.
García-Pinillos, Cámara-Pérez, Soto-Hermoso, and Latorre-Román (2017) replaced the
regular running training programme of triathletes with a HIIT-based intervention during
5 weeks. Muñoz et al. (2014) manipulated the training intensity distribution in recreational
runners randomly assigned to a 10-week training programme emphasising polarised
training (77-3-20%) or threshold training (46-35-19%). Mujika (2014) described the train-
ing programme of a world-class triathlete during her London 2012 Olympic campaign.
None of the aforementioned studies included a description of warm-up and cool-down
routines conducted into the intervention programme, and it is not confirmed whether, or
not, total training volume includes warm-up and cool-down workloads.
In that context and considering that the volume and the intensity of CR during
warm-up and cool-down routines can affect the training load, this study might help
coaches and athletes to better understand and control such variables during these parts
of the training session in terms of external load. Although a questionnaire approach
shows some limitations, here it is used with descriptive purposes and let the authors
reach a large sample size and get first-hand information on the use of CR during the
warm-up and cool-down routines of endurance runners.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 3

The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to examine the presence of running-based
exercises in the warm-up and cool-down routines for recreational endurance runners,
and (2) to determine the training volume (i.e. time and distance) orientated to warm-up
and cool-down, in terms of percentage of total training volume.

2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Endurance runners (n = 1419; age range = 18–57 years; age = 35.9 ± 8.8 years) parti-
cipated in this study. All participants met the inclusion criteria: (1) older than 18 years,
(2) two or more running sessions per week and (3) able to run 10 km in <55 min. This
study meets the ethical standards of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of
Helsinki (2013), and it was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

2.2. Procedures
This is a cross-sectional study with descriptive purposes, in which a questionnaire
developed ad hoc was massively sent to endurance runners through an online Google
Docs questionnaire (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/11KW_H-4W-foh
9fypi1J20nHByfFHWtEh6nlkgNHUuNE/edit?usp=sharing). This research project was
conducted according to the General Data Protection Regulation (2018).
After receiving ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board, pilot tests
were conducted with a small sample of athletes (n = 30) to evaluate the clarity and
content of the online Google Docs questionnaire. All of the athletes involved in the
pilot tests gave feedback that the online questionnaire was appropriate and suitable.
Subsequently, sport clubs, federations and sport institutes in Spain were contacted
through their administrators and asked to publicise the study to their athletes as
long as those sport organisations were in line with the current data protection
regulation, implicating that athletes were informed about the potential use of their
personal data for research purposes when they provided such information. Then,
athletes who were willing to participate in the study were given a link to the online
questionnaire. According to online informed consent procedures, participants were
told of the purpose and details of the study through a participant information sheet.
Participants were informed that all responses would be kept strictly confidential and
would only be used for the purposes of the study. Having consented to participate
in the study, participants filled in 12 items: (1) demographic information (i.e. sex
and age), (2) information about athletic performance in the last 6 months (i.e.
personal best in a 10 km trial), (3) information about their training contents in
the last 6 months (i.e. sessions per week, kilometres per week and hours per week)
and (4) information about their runs during both warm-up and cool-down in the
last 6 months (i.e. types of workouts in which CR is incorporated to warm-up and
cool-down, duration of those runs and number of sessions per week in which CR is
incorporated to warm-up and cool-down).
4 F. GARCÍA-PINILLOS ET AL.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Descriptive data are presented as means and standard deviation for interval variables,
and as frequency and percentage for nominal variables. Five level groups were deter-
mined according to their personal best in a 10 km trial (LG1: level group 1, 50–55 min
in a 10 km trial; LG2: level group 2, 45–50 min in a 10 km trial; LG3: level group 3,
40–45 min in a 10 km trial; LG4: level group 4, 35–40 min in a 10 km trial; LG5: level
group 5, 30–35 min in a 10 km trial). All statistical analyses were performed using the
software package SPSS (IBM SPSS version 22.0, Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results
Table 1 shows the characteristic of the participants. Out of 1419 athletes who partici-
pated in this study, 80.6% were men and 19.4% were women. On average, participants
trained 4.1 ± 1.6 sessions per week, with a weekly mileage of 47.3 ± 17.5 km. According
to level groups, an increase in the number of sessions per week and in training volume
(in terms of km and hours per week) is observed in higher level groups (e.g. LG5 with
~68 km/week) compared to lower level groups (e.g. LG1 reported ~40 km/week).
Table 2 provides information about the warm-up and cool-down routines of endurance
runners. Out of 1419 participants, 3.9% (n = 55) does not included CR during warm-up, 25.6%
included CR only before HIT sessions and 70.5% always included CR as a warm-up. When the
performance level was considered, ~100% of the higher level runners included CR during the
warm-up. Moreover, the highest percentage of runners who includes CR just before HIT
sessions was obtained in the highest level group (i.e. LG5). The average duration of CR during
warm-up was ~13 min, with longer duration in the higher level groups. Regarding cool-down
routines, 10.9% of the participants never included CR as an after-training cool-down strategy,
45.7% always does and 43.4% included it just after HIT sessions. On average, participants cool-
down during ~7 min, ~3 times per week. Higher level runners showed a greater tendency to
include cool-down routines, with greater duration and frequency.

4. Discussion
This study aimed to examine the presence of running-based exercises (i.e. CR) in the warm-up
and cool-down routines for recreational endurance runners and to determine the training
volume (i.e. time and distance) orientated to warm-up and cool-down, in terms of percentage

Table 1. Characteristic of participants (mean ± SD or n[%]) according to performance level.

Total (n = 1,419) LG1 (n = 209) LG2 (n = 209) LG3 (n = 330) LG4 (n = 473) LG5 (n = 198)
Sex Men 1144 (80.6) 66 (31.6) 132 (63.2) 297 (90.0) 462 (97.7) 187 (94.4)
Women 275 (19.4) 143 (68.4) 77 (36.8) 33 (10.0) 11 (2.3) 11 (5.6)
Age (years) 35.9 ± 8.8 39.6 ± 9.3 39.2 ± 7.6 38.1 ± 8.2 34.1 ± 6.9 29.3 ± 9.4
Sessions per 4.1 ± 1.6 3.2 ± 1.3 3.5 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 1.6 4.3 ± 1.5 5.6 ± 1.5
week
Kilometres per 47.3 ± 17.5 40.3 ± 13.9 35.3 ± 5.7 44.0 ± 13.8 49.1 ± 16.2 68.6 ± 18.4
week
Hours per week 5.5 ± 2.8 4.5 ± 1.9 3.9 ± 1.1 4.8 ± 1.7 5.8 ± 2.6 8.7 ± 3.7
LG1: level group 1, 50–55 min in a 10 km trial; LG2: level group 2, 45–50 min in a 10 km trial; LG3: level group 3, 40–45 min in
a 10 km trial; LG4: level group 4, 35–40 min in a 10 km trial; LG5: level group 5, 30–35 min in a 10 km trial.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 5

Table 2. Warm-up and cool-down routines of endurance runners according to performance level
(mean ± SD or n[%]).
Total (n = 1,419) LG1 (n = 209) LG2 (n = 209) LG3 (n = 330) LG4 (n = 473) LG5 (n = 198)
WARM-UP
CR-when Never 55 (3.9) 44 (21.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (2.3) 0 (0)
(n, %) Always 1001 (70.5) 110 (52.6) 165 (78.9) 209 (63.3) 396 (83.7) 121 (61.1)
HIT ss 363 (25.6) 55 (26.3) 44 (21.1) 121 (36.7) 66 (14.0) 77 (38.9)
CR-duration (min) 13.2 ± 6.6 8.9 ± 7.9 11.6 ± 4.9 12.8 ± 6.6 14.5 ± 5.5 16.9 ± 6.3
CR-frequency (ss/ 3.3 ± 1.8 1.8 ± 1.3 2.9 ± 1.2 3.2 ± 1.8 3.7 ± 1.8 4.1 ± 1.8
week)
COOL-DOWN
CR-when Never 154 (10.9) 55 (26.3) 33 (15.8) 33 (10.0) 22 (4.7) 11 (5.6)
(n, %) Always 649 (45.7) 77 (36.8) 121 (57.9) 99 (30.0) 275 (58.1) 77 (38.9)
HIT ss 616 (43.4) 77 (36.8) 55 (26.3) 198 (60.0) 176 (37.2) 110 (55.6)
CR-duration (min) 7.4 ± 4.6 5.9 ± 5.3 6.6 ± 4.3 7.8 ± 5.1 7.8 ± 4.4 8.3 ± 2.4
CR-frequency (ss/ 2.8 ± 1.8 1.7 ± 1.5 2.4 ± 1.6 2.6 ± 1.9 3.2 ± 1.8 3.5 ± 1.6
week)
LG1: level group 1, 50–55 min in a 10 km trial; LG2: level group 2, 45–50 min in a 10 km trial; LG3: level group 3,
40–45 min in a 10 km trial; LG4: level group 4, 35–40 min in a 10 km trial; LG5: level group 5, 30–35 min in a 10 km
trial; CR-when: types of running workouts in which continuous runs are included within the warm-up; CR-duration:
duration (in min) of runs included within the warm-up; CR-frequency: frequency, in terms of sessions per week, in
which continuous runs are included within the warm-up; HIT ss: high-intensity running sessions.

of total training volume. Since an average endurance runner trains 5.5 h/week (i.e. 330 min),
the volume of CR included into warm-up routines covers the 11.8% of the total training
volume (i.e. ~13 min per session, three sessions per week = 39 min/week), whereas the
running volume associated to cool-down routines is the 6.4% of the total training volume
(i.e. ~7 min per session, three sessions per week = 21 min/week). Altogether, an average
endurance runner spends ~18% of his/her total training time per week warming-up or
cooling-down. Taking these data into consideration, both warm-up and cool-down must be
quantified in terms of training load monitoring.
The effects of warming-up at physiological level are well defined. In a critical revision of
the literature, Bishop (2003) indicated that warming-up causes an increase of body tem-
perature which increases the release of oxygen from haemoglobin in active muscles, so that
the athletic performance might be improved (i.e. time to exhaustion at maximal endurance
exercise). Bishop (2003) also stated that power output is increased by warm-up, by accel-
erating metabolic reactions and by decreasing the viscoelastic resistances of muscles and
tendons. Based on all those responses, Bishop (2003) concluded that an active warm-up has
the potential to improve short-term, intermediate and long-term performance. However,
the convenience and benefits of including a warm-up before any type of running sessions
are not clear. A recent study (Takizawa, Yamaguchi, & Shibata, 2018) suggested that,
although physiological and neuromuscular changes occur when warming-up, the presence
or absence of a warm-up or its intensity does not affect submaximal running performance.
The authors (Takizawa et al., 2018) tested the running performance (i.e. time to exhaustion
at 90% velocity associated to maximal oxygen uptake [vVO2max]) after four warm-up
protocols: no warm-up, 15 min running at 60%, at 70% and at 80% vVO2max.
Unfortunately, our data cannot highlight the debate around the convenience of including
a running-based warm-up before running but it indicates that most of recreational endurance
runners include a ~13 min CR, in terms of warm-up, before running, regardless the
characteristic of the workout. Recreational runners spend 11.8% of their total training volume
6 F. GARCÍA-PINILLOS ET AL.

on warming-up, which is not negligible and, thereby, it should be quantified and controlled in
the workload monitoring process.
Regarding the active cool-down, a recent work by Van Hooren and Peake (2018)
defines it as a low-to-moderate intensity activity (i.e. running, in the case of the current
study) performed after working out. Some potential benefits have been traditionally
associated to an active cool-down (i.e. faster removal of lactate in blood, partial
prevention of the immune system depression, faster recovery of the normal function
of cardiovascular and respiratory systems) but recent evidences indicate that those
benefits are unclear and irrelevant from both athletic performance and injury preven-
tion perspectives (Van Hooren & Peake, 2018).
Again, the descriptive nature of the current work does not allow authors to highlight the
convenience of including CR after a running workout (i.e. active cool-down). However, this
study indicates that, in the real world, most of recreational endurance runners include CR
as an active cool-down strategy, specifically, ~3 sessions per week for ~7 min (a total of
~21 min/week). That is the 6.4% of the total training volume (in minutes) and, thereby, we
suggest that coaches and sport scientists also must quantify this part of the training session.
Considering the general guidelines provided by the aforementioned review (Van Hooren &
Peake, 2018), the characteristic of active cool-down routines performed by recreational
endurance runners meets the basic principles: (1) dynamic activity at moderate intensity,
(2) low-to-moderate mechanical stress, (3) shorter than 30 min and (4) mode of exercise
preferred by the athlete, preferably, involving the same muscle groups. Additionally, that
review (Van Hooren & Peake, 2018) indicates that the potential benefits of an active cool-
down may differ depending on the athlete and, thereby, cool-down routines should be
individualised, and this demand totally agrees with our findings and suggestions.
As indicated earlier, many previous studies (Bangsbo et al., 2009; Esfarjani & Laursen,
2007; García-Pinillos et al., 2017; Mujika, 2014; Muñoz et al., 2014) have focused on
determining the effectiveness of different training programmes for improving performance
in long-distance runs and minimising risk of injury, but no information has been detailed
about warm-up and cool-down routines (e.g. activity, duration, intensity). Likewise, it has
not been stated whether total training volume reported by those studies included the
workload (in terms of distance or time) associated to warm-up and cool-down. Despite
its limitations (a descriptive study), the current study determines the warm-up and cool-
down routines of recreational endurance runners according to athletic level, as well as
examining the relative importance (i.e. percentage of total training volume) of these
workloads within the athlete´s training plan.

5. Conclusions
In summary, these data indicate that an average endurance runner spends ~18% of his/
her total training time per week warming-up or cooling-down.
From a practical standpoint, since these data indicate that a significant percentage
(~18%) of the total training volume of recreational endurance runners is oriented to
warm-up and cool-down, both routines must be quantified in terms of training load
monitoring. Likewise, scientific publications focus on training load monitoring in
endurance runners must include a detailed description of warm-up and cool-down
routines followed by the athletes.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 7

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to all the participants.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Felipe García-Pinillos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7518-8234
Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2035-3279

References
Bangsbo, J., Gunnarsson, T. P., Wendell, J., Nybo, L., & Thomassen, M. (2009). Reduced volume
and increased training intensity elevate muscle Na+-K+ pump alpha2-subunit expression as
well as short- and long-term work capacity in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 107(6),
1771–1780.
Bishop, D. (2003). Warm-up II: Performance changes following active warm-up and how to
structure the warm-up. Sports Medicine, 33, 483–498.
Blagrove, R. C., Brown, N., Howatson, G., & Hayes, P. R. (2017). Strength and conditioning
habits of competitive distance runners. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002261
Borgers, J., Thibaut, E., Vandermeerschen, H., Vanreusel, B., Vos, S., & Scheerder, J. (2015).
Sports participation styles revisited: A time-trend study in Belgium from the 1970s to the
2000s. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. doi:10.1177/1012690212470823
Buchheit, M., & Laursen, P. B. (2013a). High-intensity interval training, solutions to the
programming puzzle: Part I: Cardiopulmonary emphasis. Sports Medicine, 43(5), 313–338.
Buchheit, M., & Laursen, P. B. (2013b). High-intensity interval training, solutions to the
programming puzzle. Part II: Anaerobic energy, neuromuscular load and practical
applications. Sports Medicine, 43(10), 927–954.
Coyle, E. F. (1995). Integration of the physiological factors determining endurance performance
ability. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. doi:10.1249/00003677-199500230-00004
Esfarjani, F., & Laursen, P. B. (2007). Manipulating high-intensity interval training: Effects on,
the lactate threshold and 3000 m running performance in moderately trained males. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 10(1), 27–35.
Esteve-Lanao, J., San Juan, A. F., Earnest, C. P., Foster, C., & Lucia, A. (2005). How do endurance
runners actually train? Relationship with competition performance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 37(3), 496–504.
Fields, K. B., Sykes, J. C., Walker, K. M., & Jackson, J. C. (2010). Prevention of running injuries.
Current Sports Medicine Reports. doi:10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181de7ec5
García-Pinillos, F., Cámara-Pérez, J. C., Soto-Hermoso, V. M., & Latorre-Román, P. Á. (2017). A
HIIT-based running plan improves athletic performance by improving muscle power. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(1), 146–153.
García-Pinillos, F., Soto-Hermoso, V. M., & Latorre-Román, P. A. (2016). How does
high-intensity intermittent training affect recreational endurance runners? Acute and chronic
adaptations: A systematic review. Journal of Sport and Health Science. doi:10.1016/j.
jshs.2016.08.010
Laursen, P. B. (2010). Training for intense exercise performance: High-intensity or high-volume
training? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(Suppl 2), 1–10.
8 F. GARCÍA-PINILLOS ET AL.

Laursen, P. B., & Jenkins, D. G. (2002). The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training
optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance
athletes. Sports Medicine, 32(1), 53–73.
Mujika, I. (2014). Olympic preparation of a world-class female triathlete. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(4), 727–731.
Muñoz, I., Seiler, S., Bautista, J., España, J., Larumbe, E., & Esteve-Lanao, J. (2014). Does
polarized training improve performance in recreational runners? International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(2), 265–272.
Nielsen, R. O., Buist, I., Sørensen, H., Lind, M., & Rasmussen, S. (2012). Training errors and running
related injuries: A systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 7(1), 58–75.
Scheerder, J., Breedveld, K., & Borgers, J. (2015). Who is doing a run with the running boom?:
The growth and governance of one of Europe’s most popular sport activities. In Running
across Europe: The rise and size of one of the largest sport markets. 1–28. London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137446374_1.
Seiler, S. (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in
endurance athletes? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(3), 276–291.
Takizawa, K., Yamaguchi, T., & Shibata, K. (2018). Warm-up exercises may not be so important
for enhancing submaximal running performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 32(5), 1383–1390.
Tschakert, G., & Hofmann, P. (2013). High-intensity intermittent exercise: Methodological and
physiological aspects. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 8(6), 600–610.
van Dyck, D., Cardon, G., de Bourdeaudhuij, I., de Ridder, L., & Willem, A. (2017). Who
participates in running events? Socio-demographic characteristics, psychosocial factors and
barriers as correlates of non-participation—A pilot study in Belgium. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1315.
van Gent, R. N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., van Os, A. G., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A., &
Koes, B. W. (2007). Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long
distance runners: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(8), 469–480.
Van Hooren, B., & Peake, J. M. (2018). Do we need a cool-down after exercise? A narrative
review of the psychophysiological effects and the effects on performance, injuries and the
long-term adaptive response. Sports Medicine, 48(7), 1575–1595.
Zapata-Lamana, R., Henríquez-Olguín, C., Burgos, C., Meneses-Valdés, R., Cigarroa, I.,
Soto, C., . . . Cerda-Kohler, H. (2018). Effects of polarized training on cardiometabolic risk
factors in young overweight and obese women: A randomized-controlled trial. Frontiers in
Physiology, 9, 1287.