See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299400974

The training of international level distance runners

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · February 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1747954115624813

CITATIONS READS

17 4,377

1 author:

Leif Inge Tjelta

University of Stavanger (UiS)
30 PUBLICATIONS   165 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relationship between off-season changes in power and in-season changes in skating speed in young ice hockey players View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leif Inge Tjelta on 21 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review
International Journal of Sports Science
& Coaching
2016, Vol. 11(1) 122–134
The training of international level ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
distance runners sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1747954115624813
spo.sagepub.com

Leif Inge Tjelta

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

Keywords
Anaerobic threshold, marathon running, periodization, principles of training

Introduction
Training regimens used by distance runners throughout
history have all aimed to optimize the athletes’ level of
performance. In this article, training regimens of
former and current elite distance runners are reviewed,
and training volume and intensity distribution of dis-
tance runners are examined. For the purposes of this
review, race distances between 1500 m and the mara-
thon (42,195 m) are considered. These events are domi-
nated by energy contribution of the aerobic energy
system.1,2 To improve the level of performance in dis-
tance running events, the training must have a positive
effect on one or more of the main physiological factors
that underlie success in these distances. These factors
are maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max),1–3 running econ-
omy (RE),2,4,5 utilization of maximum oxygen uptake
(%VO2max),6,7 velocity at the anaerobic threshold
(vAT)8,9 and velocity at VO2max (vVO2max).3,10,11
There is consensus among coaches and researchers
that it is the interaction between three variables: train-
ing volume (kilometers run per unit of time), training
frequency, and training intensity that affects the above-
mentioned physiological factors and level of perform-
ance in distance running events.12 Yet, despite attempts
to describe optimal training models for distance run-
ners,13–16 the ideal relationship between the three
above-mentioned training variables is a recurring
topic of discussion.12,17–19 A search in databases like
Sport Discus, ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar,
and other sources, using the terms ‘‘distance running’’,
‘‘elite level’’, ‘‘training volume’’, ‘‘training intensity’’,
and ‘‘intensity distribution’’, found eight articles that
have systematically registered the training volume and
intensity distribution of elite runners over longer peri-
ods of time (Table 1). In addition, one article reported
training volume among middle- (n ¼ 40) and long dis-
tance runners (n ¼ 32) at a national and international
level over a period of 8–9 years28 and another study
registered training volume and intensity distribution
over a period of six months among distance runners
at regional level.29 Other studies have reported training
volume and intensity distribution among elite runners
based on questionnaires targeted at runners or
Reviewer: Andrew Bosch (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
Department of Education and Sports Science, University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway
Corresponding author:
Leif Inge Tjelta, Department of Education and Sports Science, University
of Stavanger, N-4036, Stavanger, Norway.
Email: leif.i.tjelta@uis.no
Tjelta
Table 1. Studies that have reported training volume and training intensity distribution among elite distance runners over longer
periods.
Registration period n Gender
5 years 1 M
2 years 1 F
1 year 1 F
1 year 4 M
1 year 6 M (3) and F (3)
16 weeks 3 M
12 weeks 20 M (10) and F (10)
9 weeks 20 M (13) and F (7)
coaches,14,15 and some articles have provided examples
of the training volume and training distribution of elite
runners during selected training weeks during different
periods of the training year.30,31 A study by Ingham
et al.32 has described how a shift in training distribution
from one year to another resulted in an improvement in
physiological abilities and performance for a 1500 m
runner at an international level.
Before analyzing training volume, training intensity,
and intensity distribution of elite distance runners in the
above-mentioned articles, a rough historical overview
of the evolution of training principles that have been
used by the best contemporary distance runners from
the 1880s until the 1980s is warranted.
Historical trends
Training principles used by distance runners from the
late 1880s were influenced by training theories that pro-
vided success for outstanding runners, as well as by
physiological research. Some athletes and coaches
focused on high intensity training and lower training
volume, whereas others prioritized greater training
volume with lower intensity. Still others combined
large training volumes with elements of more intensive
training. Coaches who were associated with outstand-
ing runners have tended to be trendsetters for contem-
porary coaches and athletes.
* In the 1880s, Walter George was given the title
‘‘Champion of Champions’’ for his remarkable running
performances, and in 1885, he ran the mile in
4:12.8 min.33 It took 30 years before anyone ran the
mile faster. George’s training volume was rather low,
but he ran daily and he ran fast. He hardly ever ran
more than two miles on a single day, and even those
two miles may have been broken into two separate
training sessions.33
* During the 1920s and 1930s, Finnish runners
dominated international distance running. Finnish
sports professor Lauri Pikhala had lived in the United
123
Type of runners References
1500 m runner 20
Female track and marathon runner 21
Female track and marathon runner 22
Jr. track and cross country runners 23
Marathon (3) and long distance (3) runners 24
Marathon runners 25
Marathon runners (elite and sub-elite) 26
Long distance and cross country runners 27
States and brought training ideas home to Finland that
inspired Pavo Nurmi and several other Finnish runners
in the 1920s. Nurmi developed a training system that
was a precursor to interval training.34 Competing in
three Olympics (1920, 1924, and 1928), he won nine
gold medals, three silver medals, and one bronze
medal. Nurmi also set 22 world records over distances
from 1500 m to 20,000 m. In the early years of his
career, Nurmi seldom trained during the winter. Later
in his career, he would walk for long distances and also
use a mix of walking and running during the winter.35
* The 1930s: Woldemar Gerschler was the coach of
the German middle distance runners before and after
the Second World War. Gerschler coached, among
others, Rudolf Harbig, who set a world record in the
800 m in 1939 with a time of 1:46.6. Gerschler coopera-
ted closely with physiologist Herbert Reindell and they
introduced the term ‘‘interval training.’’34 Gerschler
later became the coach of the British runner Gordon
Pirie, who set a world record for the 5000 m in 1956
with a time of 13:36.8.
* The 1940s: Gösta Holmer was the coach of Gunder
Hägg and Arne Anderson. These legendary Swedes,
who set numerous world records over distances from
1500 to 5000 m, developed ‘‘fartlek’’ as a training
method. This training consisted of intensive efforts of
varying distance and duration, interspersed with slower
running.36 Hägg was the first to break the 14 min bar-
rier for the 5000 m (13:58.2).
* The 1950s: Emil Zatopek won the 10,000 m in the
Olympic Games in 1948, as well as the 5000 m,
10,000 m, and marathon at the 1952 Olympics.
Zatopek would run more kilometers per week than
top runners had done before him.37 His training con-
sisted primarily of large series of interval training, typ-
ically on the track. Examples of training sessions were
60 m  400 m in 80 s or 40 m  400 m in 68 s, with 200 m
jog recovery.34 Zatopek developed his training theories
without any strong influence from coaches or physiolo-
gists. On one occasion, when pursuing a theory that
124
running while holding his breath would enhance his
competitive performance, he passed out at the side of
the road. He had been trying to beat his own record for
the number of telephone poles he could pass.
In the 1950s, Miholov Igloi had success as coach for
Hungarian runners Sandor Iharos, Laszlo Tabori, and
Sandor Rozsnyi. In 1955 and 1956, Iharos set world
records in the 1500 m (3:40.8), 3000 m (7:55.6), 5000 m
(13.40.6), and 10,000 m (28:42:8). The 1500 m record was
equaled by Tabori in 1956. Rozsnyi was second in the
3000 m steeplechase at the Olympic Games in 1956.
These Hungarians based their training principles on
Gerschler’s interval training, but used an even higher
training intensity than Gerschler. Igloi championed the
idea that the runners should train twice a day.34
Another coach who was a strong supporter of inter-
val training in the 1950s was Franz Stampfl. Stampfl
was the coach of British runners Roger Bannister, Chris
Chataway, and Chris Brasher. Bannister was the first
person in the world to run the mile under 4 min, run-
ning 3:59.4 in May 1954. During the same season, he
became European champion in 1500 m. Chataway fin-
ished second in the 5000 m in the European
Championships in 1954, and Brasher won 3000 m
steeplechase in the 1956 Olympics. These runners ran
intervals from 400 to 2200 m (1.5 miles) 3–4 times a
week. The intensity of these intervals increased during
late winter and spring.34
* The 1960s signaled a departure by several coaches
and athletes from a one-sided interval training regime.
Ernest van Aaken was coach of Harold Norpoth (West
Germany), who finished second in the 5000 m Olympics
in 1964. van Aaken criticized the hard interval training
regimes, proposing instead that effective long distance
training should be founded on a base of long continu-
ous running.38 The New Zealander Arthur Lydiard was
of the same opinion. He coached middle distance
runner Peter Snell (three Olympic gold medals: 800 m
1960 and 1964, and 1500 m in 1964) as well as 5000 m
runner Murray Halberg, who won Olympic gold in
Rome in 1960. Lydiard had the philosophy that
800 m runners as well as marathon runners should
have a basic training period (preparation period)
rooted in long continuous distance running. During
this period, they were to run 160 km/week. A period
of hill running followed (6–8 weeks), and finally, 10–
12 weeks of track training leading up to the ‘‘year’s
run.’’39 Lydiard later became the national coach of
Finland, and much of Finland’s success as a distance
running nation in the 1970s and early 1980s was built
on Lydiard’s training principles.
* In the 1970s and 1980s, many athletes who com-
peted at an international level in distance running used
a training regime based on Lydiard’s high volume of
continuous training principle, but in contrast to
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)
Lydiard, they also incorporated sessions of interval
training during the preparation period.40–42 The
‘‘hard/easy’’ training system is usually attributed to
University of Oregon coaches Bill Bowerman and Bill
Delinger. Bowerman and Delinger let the runners’
workouts vary from day to day in intensity and dur-
ation, typically with two or three hard days a week
separated by easier days with continuous running.43,44
From the 1970s and 1980s to the present day, most
athletes who have competed at an international level in
distance running have used a training regime where two
to five weekly sessions of interval training have been
combined with a relatively high volume of continuous
training.31,40,41,45,46 It has also been recommended that
women should train as much, and at the same relative
intensity, as men.22,47 A variety of journals, books, and
other sources without review, have reported that suc-
cessful distance runners have typically run between 120
and 250 km/week,31,37,40,42,45,46,48,49 distributed across
11 to 18 sessions per week.31,34,37,49
Training volume and training intensity
distribution
Training volume
The term training volume may have two meanings in
training theory50:
1. The totality of training effort or work done per time
unit (day, week, month, year). Based on the prin-
ciples of mechanics, this means that work ¼ effi-
ciency  time, or work ¼ intensity  time.
2. The duration, the extent or the totality of measured
hours used for training, or the number of kilometers or
miles run per time unit (day, week, month or year).
Training volume expressed as kilometers or miles run
per unit of time is the most widely used definition in
international literature on running. This same meaning
is also used by the above-mentioned experts and is the
definition of ‘‘training volume’’ used in this article.
Nevertheless, the connection between intensity and
time is always important, and there is no doubt that
the amount of work is greater when you run faster for a
given time period, e.g., 1 h at a speed of 18 km/h instead
of at a speed of 15 km/h.
Training volume among track runners (1500–10,000 m). Grete
Waitz, the outstanding Norwegian female long distance
runner from the 1970s and 1980s, and nine-time New
York Marathon winner, ran an average of 123 km/week
in her best season as a track runner in 1979. She set a
Nordic record in 3000 m (8:31.75) and a personal best
Tjelta
in the 1500 m (4:00.58).21 She ran an average of 10–11
sessions per week.
Another Norwegian distance runner, Ingrid
Kristiansen, was the world’s best female long distance
runner in the mid 1980s. In 1986, she set world records
in the 5000 m (14:37.33) and 10,000 m (30:13.76).
During the 49 weeks from November 1985 to October
1986, her overall training volume was 7625 km. This
gives an average training volume of 155 km/week.22
Kristiansen typically trained twice a day. In one week
in January 1986, Kristiansen reported a total training
volume of 225 km. This was the highest weekly volume
reported in 1986. However, it should be mentioned that
80 of these 225 km were performed as cross-country
skiing, whereas the remainder was running.
Irish runner Sonia O’Sullivan was the 1995 World
Champion in the 5000 m. In 1998, she won the long and
the shorter distance in the World Cross Country
Championships and became European champion over
5000 and 10,000 m. Between November 1994 and May
1995, O’Sullivan typically ran 160 km/week. The high-
est volume reported for a single training week in this
period was 180 km. She typically ran two sessions per
day. During the competition period, the average weekly
training volume was reduced to 115–120 km/week.31
During the last three decades, international distance
running has been dominated by African runners. Billat
et al.27 studied the training program of Kenyan elite
runners during a training week in Europe in April
2002. In addition, the athletes’ training diaries over a
period of 8 weeks prior to this week were analyzed. The
sample (n ¼ 20) consisted of 7 women and 13 men. All
runners in the study had finished among the top 30 in
the Kenyan Cross Country Championships in 2002.
According to Billat et al.,27 these runners based their
training on either a ‘‘high volume and low intensity
model’’ (‘‘HVLI model’’) or a ‘‘low volume and high
intensity model’’ (‘‘LVHI model’’). Men (n ¼ 6) who
used the LVHI model ran 158  19 km/week and
women (n ¼ 6) who used this training model ran
127  8 km/week. Men (n ¼ 7) who followed a HVLI
model ran 174  17 km/week. These runners performed
10 to 16 running sessions per week during the reported
8–9 weeks.
The training volume reported for male HVLI-model
Kenyan male runners corresponds with the training
volume reported for the Norwegian female runner,
Susanne Wigene, who finished second in the 10,000 m
in the 2006 European Championships, running
30:32.22. In four different periods of the training year,
she ran an average of 160–180 km/week.24
According to Rabadan et al.,28 Spanish male middle
distance runners (n ¼ 40) at a national and inter-
national level, during the period 2000–2008, ran 130–
140 km/week in the preparation period. During the
125
same period, male long distance runners (n ¼ 32) at
the same level, ran 160–180 km/week.
The average running volume for the 2012 European
1500 m champion Henrik Ingebrigtsen was 146 km/
week in November and December 2011, followed by
156 km/week during 10 weeks from 1 January to the
middle of March 2012, and 150 km/week from the
middle of March to the end of May.20
Training volume among young distance runners. A study of
four young Norwegian distance runners (age 17–19
years), who were second in the team competition in
the 2008 European Junior Cross Country
Championships (finishing 2nd, 10th, 16th, and 20th
place), ran in three different periods of the training
year an average of 132.5 (25.9), 115.7 (22.9), and
145 (22.9) km/week.23 This is substantially more kilo-
meters per week than Esteve-Lanao et al.29 reported for
young Spanish runners over a training period of 6
months. These runners had an average running
volume of 70 km/week.
The primary distinction between the four Norwegian
juniors and the Spanish runners was the number of
kilometers run at a low intensity. In the study by
Esteve-Lanao et al.,29 it was found that the runners
who ran the most kilometers per week were those
who performed the best. This may be a contributing
factor to the fact that the Norwegians, despite being
younger than the Spaniards (17.8  1 year vs. 23  2
years), performed better. The Norwegian runners
were closer to the world records over the distances
1500 and 5000 m than the Spanish runners.23 The two
juniors in the Norwegian study who ran the greatest
number of kilometer per week in 2008, three seasons
later (2011), became European champions for adoles-
cents (<23 years) over 5000 m and 10,000 m, respect-
ively. The third runner finished 18th in the European
Cross Country Championships for adolescents (<23
years) in 2012, a championship in which the fourth
runner, the European 1500 m track champion of
2012—Henrik Ingebrigtsen—won. This suggests that
a relatively large training volume during adolescence
has had a positive effect on their development as dis-
tance runners.
Training volume among marathon runners. In 1983, Grete
Waitz won the London Marathon, the Marathon in
the World Championship and the New York mara-
thon. During 36 weeks from January to the end of
August, she ran an average of 121 km/week.21
In 1985, Kristiansen set a world record in the
London Marathon by running 2:21:06. Her average
training volume during 15 weeks leading up to the
race was 167 km/week.51 This includes the two
final weeks where the volume was reduced to 131
126
and 95 km, respectively. The 95 km for the last week
include the marathon race.
According to Billat et al.,27 the Kenyan female
runner Tegla Lourope, used a HVLI model
(174  17 km/week) when she, in Rotterdam in 1998,
broke Ingrid Kristiansen’s world record in the mara-
thon by running 2:20:47.
Billat et al.26 registered training volume and training
intensity for Portuguese and French marathon runners
(n ¼ 20) over a period of 12 weeks leading up to the
Olympic trials in 2000. The group consisted of 10 elite
(5 male and 5 female) and 10 sub-elite runners (5 male
and 5 female). The five elite male athletes ran an aver-
age of 206  26 km/week. This was significantly higher
than the sub-elite runners who ran 168  20 km/week.
Total weekly running volume was not significantly dif-
ferent for females between performance levels
(166  20 km vs. 150  17 for elite and sub-elite,
respectively). Elite male runners ran 13.0  0.7 sessions
per week vs. 11.5  1.7 for sub-elite runners. Female
runners ran 12.4  0.4 (elite) and 10.4  1.7 (sub-elite)
sessions per week.
Karp15 described the training of 2004 U.S. Olympic
Marathon trial qualifiers. The number of kilometers per
week reported by male elite runners was higher than
that for national runners (155.6  9.3 vs.
144.2  26.5 km/week). The female elite runners also
ran more than those at national level (135.8  31.5 vs.
111.3  23.3 km/week). Karp15 emphasizes that 74.8%
of the training volume of the best American male mara-
thon runners, and 68.5% of the volume of the best
women, was run at a pace below average marathon
pace. Another key point was that the best marathon
runners who competed in the U.S. Olympic Marathon
Trials also ran faster than the second best marathon
runners in track events (3000, 5000, and 10,000 m).
The two Norwegian female runners who, with times
of 2:27:05 and 2:29:12, are number 3 and 4 on the
Norwegian all-time female marathon statistic at the
time of writing, were running an average of 180 and
200 km/week during a training year, the seasons (2004
and 2008) they ran their best marathon races.24 Like
Ingrid Kristiansen, these two runners ran 12–13 ses-
sions per week.
According to Ferreira and Rolim,14 male marathon
runners at the international level based their training on
either a HVLI model or a LVHI model. Average train-
ing volume in the HVLI model was 200–260 km/week,
with 80–85% of the training carried out at relatively
low intensity (60–75% of VO2max). In the LVHI
model, the weekly training volume was 150–200 km/
week, with a large percentage of training conducted at
higher intensity (80–87% of VO2max). Both of these
models have been successfully used by marathon run-
ners who have performed at a top international level.14
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)
The British runner Paula Radcliffe, who at the time
of writing holds the female world record for the mara-
thon with the time of 2:15:25, ran between 192 and
256 km/week (120–160 miles/week) during the periods
when she was in full marathon training.30 She typically
trained two sessions per day. She is a three-time winner
of the London Marathon (2002, 2003, 2005) and three-
time New York Marathon champion (2004, 2007,
2008).
In 2012, Stellingwerff25 recorded training and food
intake of three elite male marathon runners during the
16 weeks before they ran the marathon in, respectively,
2:11:23, 2:12:39, and 2:16:17. On average, they ran
182 km/week. The highest training volume reported in
a single week was 231 km. These athletes ran an average
of 13 sessions per week. Training volume reported for
selected distance runners who have competed at an
international level is listed in Tables 2 (female runners)
and 3 (male runners).
Training intensity distribution
Different intensity zone schemes have been used to
describe the intensity distribution in endurance ath-
letes.16 In the research literature, the aerobic training
for endurance events is generally classified into three
zones.19,23,29,52 An intensity distribution in three aer-
obic zones has also been used in studies where exercise
intensity has been related to ventilation and lactate.
Training at an intensity below the first lactate (L1)
and ventilatory threshold (V1) (zone 1) is defined as
low intensity exercise with lactate <2 mmol/L. Zone 2
is classified as anaerobic threshold training between
V1/L1 and the second lactate (L2) and ventilatory
threshold (V2), and blood lactate concentrations
between 2 and 4 mmol/L. Zone 3 is the training con-
ducted in the intensity range of V2/L2, with lactate
>4 mmol/L.53–55 If we classify training on a scale with
three aerobic zones, it would also be appropriate to
include two zones to describe the anaerobic intensity
distribution.55 Zone 4 would be training of anaerobic
endurance56,57 and zone 5 would be sprint training.58,59
A five-zone intensity scale based on three aerobic zones
and two anaerobic zones, and adjusted for distance
runners at the elite level, could be similar to that pre-
sented in Table 4. In Table 4, zone 2 is defined as lactate
between 2 and 4 mmol/L. Reference values are based on
measurements made with Lactate Pro LT – 1710TM.55
It must be added that the transition between the dif-
ferent intensity zones does not exactly follow definite
limits, and that intensity zones are not anchored to
clearly defined physiological markers.16 The relation-
ship between heart rate (HR) and lactate will also
vary between different runners, and for the same athlete
during a training period.61 Table 4 describes the type of
Tjelta 127

Table 2. Average training volume (km/week) reported for selected female elite distance runners during reported training periods.

Athlete(s) Year Main distance(s) Reported period km/week

Female track distance runners

Grete Waitz21 1979 1500 and 3000 m November 1978–December 123
1979
Ingrid Kristiansen22 1986 5000 and 10,000 m 49 weeks from November 1985– 155
October 1986
Sonia O’Sullivan31 1994 5000 and 10,000 m November 1994–May 1995 160
Kenyan runners (n ¼ 6)27 2002 Long distance and cross 9 weeks during spring 2002 127  8
country
Susanne Wigene24 2006 5000 and 1000 m November 2005–October 2006 167
Female marathon runners
Grete Waitz21 1983 Marathon 36 weeks from January to August 121
1983
Ingrid Kristiansen51 1985 Marathon and long 15 weeks leading up to London 167
distance Marathon in 1985
Portuguese and French elite 2000 Marathon 12 weeks leading up to Olympic 166  20
runners (n ¼ 5)26 trials in 2000
American elite runners (n ¼ 9) 2004 Marathon Self-reported average training 135.8  31.5
(Olympic marathon trial volume during a year
qualifiers)15
Norwegian runners (n ¼ 2)24 2004 and Marathon Average volume during a training 180 and 200
2008 year (11 months)
Paula Radcliffe30 2002– Marathon Reported for periods she was in 192–256
2008 full marathon training

Table 3. Average training volume (km/week) reported for selected male elite distance runners during reported training periods.

Athlete(s) Year Main distance(s) Reported period km/week

Male track distance runners

Kenyan long distance run- 2002 Long distances and cross 9 weeks during spring 2002 174  17
ners using HVLI model country
(n ¼ 7)27
Kenyan long distance run- 2002 Long distances and cross 9 weeks during spring 2002 158  19
ners using LVHI model country
(n ¼ 6)27
Spanish middle distance 2000–2008 Middle distances Average training volume in the 130–140
runners (n ¼ 40)28 preparation period
Spanish long distance run- 2000–2008 Long distances Average training volume in the 160–180
ners (n ¼ 32)28 preparation period
Henrik Ingebrigtsen20 2012 1500 m November 2011–May 2012 150
Young Norwegian dis- 2008 Cross country, 1500, Preparation period: November– 132.5  25.9
tance runners, 17–19 3000, and 5000 m April
years (n ¼ 4)23
Male marathon runners
Portuguese and French 2000 Marathon 12 weeks leading up to Olympic 206  26
elite runners (n ¼ 5)26 trials in 2000
Elite runners using HVLI 1981–2003 Marathon Based on questionnaire among 200–260
model (n ¼ 5 coaches
coaches)14
(continued)
128
Table 3. Continued
Athlete(s) Year Main distance(s)
Elite runners using LVHI 1981–2003 Marathon
mode (n ¼ 5 coaches)14
American elite runners 2004 Marathon
(n ¼ 3) (Olympic mara-
thon trial qualifiers)15
Elite Canadian marathon 2012 Marathon
runners (n ¼ 3)25
Table 4. Five-zone intensity scale: Intensity zones, running speed and type of training, lactate values during exercise, HR in % of
HRmax, and presumed physiological effects of the training.55
Intensity
zone Type of training Lactate (mmol/L)
1 Easy and moderate continuous 0.7–2.0
running
2 Threshold training 2.0–4.0
3 Intensive aerobic intervals 4.0–8.0
4 Anaerobic training, mainly at >8.0
800 m and 1500 m pace
5 Sprint
HR: heart rate.
training performed, typical lactate values for well-
trained distance runners, HR in % of HRmax, and pre-
sumed physiological adaptation in response to training
in the various zones. Table 4 is the intensity scale that
will be referred to in this article.
Training distribution among track runners. Analyses of Grete
Waitz’ training diaries from November 1978 to October
197921 show that, as a track runner in 1979, she per-
formed 52% of average running volume as moderate
continuous running in zone 1, 43% as fast continuous
running in zone 2, 2.5% in zone 3, 2% in zone 4, and
0.5% in zone 5. The 2% in zone 3 is mainly composed
of competitions from 3000 m to 10,000 m. On average,
she trained 10–11 sessions per week.21 As a marathon
runner in 1983, her training volume and intensity dis-
tribution were similar to the 1979 season.21
Ingrid Kristiansen who from November 1985 to
October 1986 ran an average of 155 km/week,22 per-
formed 91.31% of this total training volume as easy
and moderate running (zone 1). During the same
49 weeks, 4.7% of her training volume was performed
at a speed between 3:10 and 3:40 min/km. These ses-
sions were executed as continuous running over dis-
tances from 3 to 23 km. Her coach, Kaggestad,22
classified this training as anaerobic threshold training
(zone 2). Only 3.5% of the training volume, performed
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)
Reported period km/week
Based on questionnaire among 150–200
coaches
Self-reported average training 155.6  9.3
volume during a year
Training registration of 16 weeks 182
leading up to a marathon race
HR in % av HRmax Physiological adaptation
62–82 Recovery and improved run-
ning economy30,60
82–92 Increase vAT and VO2max61,62
92–97 Increase VO2max13,63,64
>97 Increase anaerobic
capacity56,57
Increase speed58,59
in 45 sessions, was aerobic capacity training (zone 3).
Zone 3 training was in the form of repetitions over
distances from 400 to 1000 m carried out at 3000,
5000, or 10,000 m pace or competitions over 3000,
5000, and 10,000 m. In her training diary, she reported
a total of 10 sessions of anaerobic capacity training in
zone 4, which is 0.37% of the yearly training volume.
This was performed as 200 or 300 m repetitions at
1500 m pace or competitions over 1500 m. Training
classified as zone 5 includes 1162 stride repetitions
between 60 and 100 m, 0.12% of the total yearly
volume.22
The 1994 the 5000 and 10,000 m European Champion,
Sonia O’Sullivan, typically trained 14 sessions per week
during the preparation period. One weekly session was
performed as intervals between 800 and 1600 m where
HR was between 90 and 95% of HRmax (zone 3), one
session was hill running (10  1 min) (zone 4) and one
session was a 15–16 mile (25,000–25,750 m) fast long
run (zone 2). All other running sessions were easy and
moderate continuous running (zone 1). In the competi-
tion period, she increased the number of high-intensity
sessions at specific race pace, while reducing the weekly
running volume to 120–130 km/week.31
A study of the training of Kenyan long distance
track and cross country runners at an elite level has
shown that some runners use the LVHI model, whereas
Tjelta
others prefer the HVLI model.27 The majority of female
runners, and 6 of 13 male elite runners, used the LVHI
model. The training volume of these runners was
usually around 120–130 km/week. They typically per-
formed two interval sessions per week. One session
could be 10–20  400–600 m around VO2max pace
(zone 3) or 7 m  200 m at 120% of vVO2max (zone 4).
The other weekly interval session might be longer inter-
vals carried out at a pace between vVO2max and vAT.
According to Billat et al.,27 this pace is close to specific
10,000 m speed (zone 3). Examples of such sessions are
10 m  1000 m or 5 m  2000 m.
The seven male distance runners who used the HVLI
model incorporated several long runs around the anaer-
obic threshold speed (marathon pace to half marathon
pace ¼ zone 2) in their training regime. The duration of
these sessions was between 45 and 70 min.
Enoksen et al.24 analyzed the training diaries of six
of the best long distance runners in Norway from the
last decade. Three international level long distance run-
ners (two males and one female) and three marathon
runners (one male and two females) were included.
Of the track runners’ weekly running volume during
the preparation period 76.4  1.6% (123  11 km)
was continuous running in zone 1. The percentage
of training performed in zone 2 was 19.6  1.1%
(31.6  4.9 km). The training reported in zone 2 con-
sisted of mainly interval sessions, though the training
did include some hard continuous runs. During the
preparation period (from 1 November until the end of
February), the track runners performed two to four
sessions per week in zone 2, with a variation from
week to week according to the planned training struc-
ture. The percentage of running volume in zone 3 was
2.7  1.5% (4.4  3.6 km). This was mainly composed
of more intensive interval sessions at close to 5000 m
pace. Only 1.3  0.2% (2  1.3 km) of the training
volume was reported to be anaerobic capacity training
or speed training (zone 4 and 5). The intensity distribu-
tion in the pre-competition period was very similar to
the distribution in the preparation period, except that
these track runners performed more training in zone 4
(2.9  0.8%). This was mainly track running at 1500 m
pace.
A longitudinal study of the training of the 2012
European champion at 1500 m, Henrik Ingebrigtsen,20
shows that in 2012, he performed 68.5% of his total
training volume as easy and moderate running in
zone 1 during the period from January to the middle
of March. During the same period, 26.1% was per-
formed as anaerobic threshold training (zone 2). This
zone 2 training was performed as longer sessions of
interval training over distances from 400 to 3000 m.
In all, 3.8% of training was performed as aerobic
high intensity training in zone 3 (primarily as one
129
weekly session of hill running). Only 1.5% was per-
formed as anaerobic training (zones 4 and 5). During
the track competition period, the percentage of training
performed at low intensity increased to 73% as a result
of some training loads at anaerobic threshold pace
being replaced by more intensive aerobic and anaerobic
training sessions, requiring a lower training volume.
Training distribution among young distance runners. The four
Norwegian junior runners who were second in the team
competition in the 2008 European Cross Country
Championships performed 78.3  4.7% of their
weekly training volume during the preparation period
(November–March) as continuous running with a HR
between 65 and 82% of HRmax (zone 1). In all,
19.5  5.4% of total training volume was anaerobic
threshold training with a HR between 82 and 92% of
HRmax (zone 2). During the track competition period,
less training was carried out as anaerobic threshold
training. However, the amount of aerobic capacity
training (zone 3), training at 10,000 m, 5000 m, and
3000 m race pace and competitions over these distances,
increased from 1.3  1.4% in the preparation period to
4.8  3.2% in the competition period. Training at 800
and 1500 m pace (anaerobic capacity training) and
competitions over these distances comprised
0.9  1.3% of the total running volume (zone 4).23
Training distribution among marathon runners. As men-
tioned earlier, marathon runners at a top international
level have, like the Kenyan distance runners, used either
the HVLI model or the LVHI model.14 Coaches who
have trained male marathon runners at an international
level using the LVHI model14 classify a kilometer pace
during a continuous running session of between 4:10
and 3:45 min as easy, between 3:50 and 3:30 min/km
as moderate and between 3:15 and 3:00 min/km as
hard. Those coaches who trained their runners accord-
ing to the HVLI model used the terms easy, moderate,
and hard for slower paces per kilometer.
A weekly session of long intervals, such as 1000 m
repetitions, was used by all the marathon coaches in the
study by Ferreira and Rolim.14 For those who used a
HVLI model, 15 m  1000 m in 2:55 min with 45-s
recovery could be a typical session. The LVHI-model
runners typically ran each 1000 m repetition faster, but
had fewer repetitions and longer recoveries. A total of
10 of the 12 coaches also incorporated a session of
shorter intervals in their training regimen. Repeated
400 m efforts are examples of such intervals. In the
competition period, the recommended number of
400 m repetitions was between 14 and 26. The coaches
who advocated the greatest number of repetitions were
those using the HVLI model. A session consisting of
26 m  400 m in 68 s with 1 min recovery is cited as an
130 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)

Zone 5 (%)
example. Based on the pace for these interval sessions,

0.5  0.2
it can be presumed that the interval sessions for the

0.12
HVLI-model marathon runners are performed as

0.5

0.5

0.5
1
threshold training (zone 2), whereas the interval ses-

Zone 4 (%)
sions for the LVHI-model marathon runners are per-
formed as more intensive aerobic training (zone 3).

8  2.8

1  0.5
0.37
Among the Kenyan women who have used a HVLI

1
model is Tegla Lourope, who in 1998 and 1999 set
world records in the marathon by running 2:20:47 in

Zone 3 (%)

3.6  4.1

2.5  1.3
Rotterdam and 2:20:42 in Berlin. Lourope preferred a
weekly interval session consisting of 6  1 mile (1609 m)

2.5
3.5
2.5

3.5

10
with 200 - to 400 m jog recovery. According to Billat

3
et al.,27 this training session was performed at a pace

Zone 2 (%)
between 5000 and 10,000 m speed (zone 3).

12  3.5
The female marathon runner Paula Radcliffe also

13.5
4.7
used a training model based on a high training

43

17

45
0

5
volume, but her training was not characterized by low

Table 5. Reported training intensity distribution for elite female distance runners during selected periods of a training year.

Zone 1 (%)
intensity. During a number of long runs, she would run
at speeds from 3:40 to 3:20 min/km.30 In addition to

84  4
91.31
77.5
88.4

90.5

76.5
these long runs, Radcliffe typically trained one session

52

50
per week at anaerobic threshold speed (i.e. around
5:00 min/mile or 3:08 min/km) for an extended period, Average volume
as well as one or two interval training sessions between (km/week)
95 and 100% of VO2max (zone 3) when she was in full

190  10

168  20
127  8
marathon training.30 123
155
167

121

167
Of the marathon runners’ weekly training volume
during the preparation period in the study of

36 weeks from January to August

Enoksen et al.,24 83.6  4.0% (156.2  21 km) was

12 weeks leading up to Olympic

November 1978–October 1979
November 1985–October 1986
November 2005–October 2006

15 weeks leading up to London

11 months (in 2004 and 2008,

easy and moderate continuous running in zone 1. The
9 weeks during spring 2002
percentage of training volume performed in zone 2 was
12.7  3.5% (23.7  8.2 km), with a HR between 82 and
87% of HRmax. During this period, 2.5  1.2%

marathon 1985

trials in 2000
(4.7  2.4 km) of the training was run at 10,000 m

respectively)
Training period

pace (zone 3). Only 1.2  0.7% (2  0.9 km) of the train-
ing volume was reported to be anaerobic capacity train-
1983

ing or speed training (zones 4 and 5). Compared with

the preparation and the pre-competition periods, the
marathon runners volume performed in zone 2 in the
competition period was almost identical to the two pre-
Long distance and cross

vious periods, but they increased the amount of train-

ing in zone 3 during the competition period
(4.1  2.9%).
5000/10,000 m
5000/10,000 m
1500/3000 m

The three marathon runners in the study by

country

Marathon

Marathon

Marathon

Marathon

Stellingwerff25 had the following intensity distribution

Distance

over a period of 16 weeks: 74% of the training sessions

were run at low intensity (zone 1), 11% at intensity
around the anaerobic threshold (zone 2) and 15% of
Kenyan runners (n ¼ 6)27

sessions were conducted at speeds above the anaerobic

Portuguese and French

threshold (mainly zone 3).

runners (n ¼ 5)26
Norwegian runners
Ingrid Kristiansen22
Susanne Wigene24

In the 12 weeks leading up to the Olympic trials,

Marathon runners

Ingrid Kristiansen

Billat et al.26 reported that elite Portuguese and

Grete Waitz21

Grete Waitz21
Track runners

French male marathon runners typically ran more kilo-

(n ¼ 2)24
Athlete(s)

meters at marathon pace (zone 2) and more kilometers

at 3000 and 10,000 m pace (zone 3) than did female elite
runners.
Tjelta 131

Zone 5 (%)
Tables 5 and 6 show reported training intensity dis-

0.5  0.3
tribution for elite female (Table 5) and male (Table 6)
runners mentioned in the articles in Table 1 during

0.5
selected training periods. In addition, Ingrid
Zone 4 (%)

Kristiansen’s training during 15 weeks leading up to

5.0  2.6

0.7  0.5
her world record for the marathon in 1985 has been
examined for the purpose of this review.51 In Tables 5

1
and 6, zone 2 is defined as marathon- and half-mara-
thon pace, zone 3 is 3000, 5000 and 10,000 m pace.
Zone 3 (%)

1.4  6.8

4.3  2.4

1.4  1.4

Conclusion

15a
3.8

10
According to documented training, successful distance
Zone 2 (%)

runners, competing primarily over distances from

14.4  6.8

19.6  1.1
6.9  5.6

1500 m to marathon, have typically run between 120

26.1

11a
and 260 km/week.14,15,20,21,24,27,28,30,31 Kenyan runners
12

who have achieved success with training volumes

Zone 1 (%)
Table 6. Reported training intensity distribution for elite male distance runner during selected periods of a training year.

The percentage in different zones in this study is expressed in percent of total number of training sessions during the reported period. between 120 and 150 km/week typically trained with
78.3  4.7

higher exercise intensity than those who ran >200 km/

week.27 Among Kenyan long distance runners, the
84.2

83.8

68.5

74a
78

training volume is reported to be higher for male than

female runners.27 High training volume is often a result
of many weekly training sessions, and male distance
Average volume

runners from Kenya who have high weekly training

132.5  25.9

volumes often run three times per day.27

(km/week)

174  17

158  19

206  26

For senior 5000 and 10,000 m runners, training vol-

umes around 150–200 km/week for male runners24,27
155

180

and 120–170 km/week for female runners21,24,27

appear to be appropriate during the preparation
January–middle of March 2012

period. The 2012 male European 1500 m champion

9 weeks during spring 2002

9 weeks during spring 2002

had an average volume of 145–156 km during different

Olympic trials in 2000
12 weeks leading up to

16 weeks leading up to

parts of the training year.20 It appears to be beneficial

to combine these weekly training volumes with two to
a marathon race
January–April 2008

four sessions at threshold speed (zone 2) and one or two

Training period

sessions of training in zones 3 or 4 in the preparation

period. For athletes competing over distances from
1500 to 10,000 m, it is recommended to reduce the
number of sessions and the number of kilometers run
in zone 2 (vAT pace) and increase the number of ses-
sions at specific race pace during the pre-competition
Cross country, 1500,
3000, and 5000 m
Long distances and

Long distances and

and competition periods.

cross country

cross country

Male marathon runners at the international level

run, on average, between 150 and 260 km/week. It has
Marathon

Marathon

been reported that marathon runners who ran the

Distance

1500 m

fewest kilometers per week followed a program with

higher intensity than those who ran a greater number
of kilometers per week.14 For male marathon runners
Norwegian junior runners

who use a HVLI model, it is recommended to run

Portuguese and French
Kenyan HVLI runners

Henrik Ingebrigtsen20

between 180 and 260 km/week, with 80–90% of total

Kenyan LVHI runners

runners (n ¼ 5)26
Canadian runnersa

volume composed of easy and moderate continuous

Marathon runners

running in zone 1. One, two, or three weekly sessions

Track runners

should be performed in zone 2 and one session in zone 3

(n ¼ 7)27

(n ¼ 6)27

(n ¼ 4)23

(n ¼ 3)25
Athlete(s)

or, alternatively, one session in zone 2 and one or two

sessions in zone 3. It is recommended to reduce the train-
ing volume the last two weeks before a marathon race.
a
132
Top results for the marathon can also be achieved with
lower training volumes (150–200 km/week), using
the LVHI model. This requires higher intensity for
the continuous running sessions and interval workouts
with fewer repetitions, higher intensity and longer
recovery between the intervals, compared with the
HVLI model.14
For Portuguese, French,26 and American15 mara-
thon runners, training volume had been higher for
male than female runners.
The world record holder for the women’s marathon
(at the time of writing) used a combination of the HVLI
model and the LVHI model.30 She ran between 192 and
256 km/week (120–160 miles) during the periods when
she was in full marathon training. This is a higher
volume than reported for Grete Waitz in 1983,21
Ingrid Kristiansen in 1985,51 for Portuguese and
French female marathon runners in 2000,26 and for
American female marathon runners in 2004.15
However, training volume (kilometers per week) and
training intensity must be considered in relation to the
individual athlete’s level, how many years the runner
has been at the international level and from the ath-
lete’s individual characteristics.14 In contrast to scien-
tists, the challenge for a coach is to identify training
that is optimal over time for the individual athlete,
rather than designing a workout that gives the greatest
average progression for a larger group following a lim-
ited period of training.65
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Foster C. VO2max and training indices as determination
of competitive running performance. J Sports Sci 1983; 1:
13–22.
2. Noakes TD, Myburgh KH and Schall R. Peak treadmill
running velocity during the VO2max test predicts running
performance. J Sports Sci 1990; 8: 35–45.
3. Ingham SA, Whyte GP, Pedlar C, et al. Determinants of
800 m and 1500 m running performance using allometric
models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 345–350.
4. Conley DL and Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and
distance running performance of highly trained athletes.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 357–360.
5. Morgan DW, Martin PE and Krahenbuhl GS. Factors
affecting running economy. Sports Med 1989; 7: 310–330.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)
6. Bassett DR and Howley ET. Limiting factors for max-
imum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance per-
formance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 70–84.
7. Noakes T. Physiological capacity of the elite runner.
In: Bangsbo J and Larsen HB (eds) Running and science:
an interdisciplinary perspective. Copenhagen: Institute of
Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of Copenhagen,
Munksgaard, 2001, pp.19–47.
8. Faude O, Kindermann W and Meyer T. Lactate thresh-
old concepts: How valid are they? Sports Med 2009; 39:
469–490.
9. Tolfrey K, Hansen SA, Dutton K, et al. Physiological
correlates of 2-mile run performance as determined
using a novel on-demand treadmill. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 2009; 34: 763–772.
10. Daniels J and Scardina N. Interval training and perform-
ance. Sports Med 1984; 1: 327–334.
11. Bosquet L, Leger L and Legros P. Methods to determine
aerobic endurance. Sports Med 2002; 32: 675–700.
12. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR and Jones AM. Training
to enhance the physiological determinants of long-dis-
tance running performance. Sports Med 2007; 37:
857–880.
13. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: A scientific
and empirical practice: Special recommendations for
middle- and long-distance running. Part II: Anaerobic
interval training. Sports Med 2001; 31: 75–90.
14. Ferreira RL and Rolim R. The evolution of marathon
training: A comparative analysis of elite runners’ training
programmes. New Stud Athletics 2006; 21: 29–37; 108–
111.
15. Karp JR. How they train. Running Times, 2007 (351),
pp.32–33.
16. Seiler S and Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds and long
slow distance: The role of intensity and duration in
endurance training. Sportscience 2009; 24: 1340–1345.
17. Brandon LJ. Physiological factors associated with middle
distance running performance. Sports Med 1995; 19:
268–277.
18. Grant G. No short-cuts to the top. Athletics Weekly
(Descartes Publishing Ltd), 2009, p.26.
19. Seiler KS and Kjerland GØ. Quantifying training inten-
sity distribution in elite endurance athletes: Is there evi-
dence for an optimal distribution? Scand J Med Sci
Sports 2006; 16: 49–56.
20. Tjelta LI. A longitudinal case study of the training of the
2012 European 1500 m track champion. Int J Appl Sports
Sci 2013; 25: 11–18.
21. Tjelta LI, Tønnessen E and Enoksen E. A case study of
the training of nine times New York marathon winner
Grete Waitz. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2014; 9: 139–158.
22. Kaggestad J. So Trainiert Ingrid Kristiansen 1986.
Leichtatletik 1987; 38: 831–834.
23. Tjelta LI and Enoksen E. Training characteristics of male
junior cross country and track runners on European top
level. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 193–203.
24. Enoksen E, Tjelta AR and Tjelta LI. Distribution of
training volume and intensity of elite male and female
track and marathon runners. Int J Sports Sci Coach
2011; 6: 273–294.
Tjelta
25. Stellingwerff T. Case study: Nutrition and training peri-
odization in three elite marathon runners. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab 2012; 22: 392–400.
26. Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, et al. Physical and
training characteristics of top-class marathon runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 2089–2097.
27. Billat V, Lepretre PM, Heugas AM, et al. Training and
bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female
Kenyan runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35:
297–304.
28. Rabadan M, Diaz V, Calderon FJ, et al. Physiological
determinants of speciality of elite middle- and long-dis-
tance runners. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 975–982.
29. Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, et al. How do
endurance runners actually train? Relationship with com-
petition performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:
496–504.
30. Jones AM. The physiology of the world record holder for
the women’s marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1:
101–116.
31. Tjelta LI and Enoksen E. Training volume and intensity.
In: Bangsbo J and Larsen HB (eds) Running and science:
an interdisiciplinary perspective. Copenhagen: Institute of
Exercise and Sport Sciences, University of Copenhagen,
Munksgaard, 2001, pp.149–177.
32. Ingham SA, Fudge BW and Pringle JS. Training distri-
bution, physiological profile, and performance for a male
international 1500-m runner. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2012; 7: 193–195.
33. Krise R and Squires B. Fast track, the history of distance
running since 884 B.C. Brattleboro, Vermont: The
Stephen Green Press, 1982.
34. Brook N. Endurance running events. Birmingham,
England: British Athletic Federation, 1992.
35. Wilt F. How they train. Los Altos, CA: Track and Field
News, 1973.
36. Holmer G. The way to the record. A book for athletic
coaches [in Norwegian: Veien til rekorden.
Instruksjonsbok i friidrett]. Oslo: Forlagshuset, 1947.
37. Karikosk O. Training volume in distance running.
Modern Athlete Coach 1984; 22: 18–20.
38. van Aaken E. Kritik des Intervall trainings. Eigenverlag:
Freiburger Pragung aus Biochemie und Praxis, 1964.
39. Lydiard A and Gilmour G. Running the Lydiard way.
California: World Publishing, 1978.
40. Burfoot A. Training the hard/easy way. Runners World
1981; 16: 57–105.
41. Temple C. Cross country and road running. London:
Stanly Paul, 1980.
42. Ferreira P. Experience in Oporto. Track Field Q Rev
1983; 83: 38–41.
43. Dellinger B and Freeman B. The competitive runners
book. New York: Colliers Books, 1984.
44. Moritani T and deVries HA. Neural factors versus hyper-
trophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am
J Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 58: 115–130.
45. Tjelta LI. Middle and long distance running in Kenya [in
Norwegian: Mellom- og langdistanseløping i Kenya].
Kondis, 2003, 3.
133
46. Evertsen E. Long distance running in Kenya [in
Norwegian: Kenyansk langdistanseløping]. Idrettsmagasinet,
1998, 1.
47. Lenzi G. The women’s marathon: Preparing for an
important event in the season. In: XII congress
European coaches association, Acoteias Portugal, 1983.
48. Tjelta LI. British middle distance training in the 1980s
[in Norwegian: Britisk mellomdistansetrening i 1980
årene]. Kondis 2007; 6: 26–28.
49. Skah K. Training in Marokko. In: Nordic coaches confer-
ence. Oslo, 1997. Khalid Skah in Nordic Coaches
Conference.
50. Gjerset A. The science of training [in Norwegian:
Idrettens treningslære]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1992.
51. Tjelta LI and Kristiansen I. Analysis of Ingrid
Kristiansen’s training diary from the season 1985. 2015.
Unpublished material.
52. Zapico AG, Calderon FJ, Benito PJ, et al. Evolution of
physiological and haematological parameters with train-
ing load in elite male road cyclists: a longitudinal study.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2007; 47: 191–196.
53. Lucia A, Hoyos J, Carvajal A, et al. Heart rate response
to professional road cycling: the tour de France. Int
J Sports Med 1999; 20: 167–172.
54. Lucia A, Hoyos J, Santalla A, et al. Tour de France
versus Vuelta a Espana: Which is harder? Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 872–878.
55. Tjelta LI. The training process in distance running at an
international level. Analysis of training volume, training
intensity and demands to physical capacity [in
Norwegian: Treningsprosessen i distanseløp på internas-
jonalt nivå. En analyse av treningsmengde, treningsinten-
sitet og krav til fysisk kapasitet]. Dr. Philos Thesis,
Faculty of Arts and Education, University of
Stavanger, 2014.
56. Balasekaran G, Keong LM, Robertson RJ, et al. Energy
system contribution during 1500m running in untrained
and endurance trained male college students. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 299–299.
57. Buchheit M and Laursen PB. High-intensity interval
training, solutions to the programming puzzle. Sports
Med 2013; 43: 927–954.
58. Haugen T, Tønnessen E, Leirstein S, et al. Not quite so
fast: Effect of training at 90% sprint speed on maximal
and repeated-sprint ability in soccer players. J Sports Sci
2014; 32: 1979–1986.
59. Ufland P, Ahmaidi S and Buchheit M. Repeated-sprint
performance, locomotor profile and muscle oxygen
uptake recovery: Effect of training background. Int
J Sports Med 2013; 34: 924–930.
60. Pate RR, Macera CA, Bailey SP, et al. Physiological,
anthropometric, and training correlates of running econ-
omy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: 1128–1133.
61. Tjelta LI, Tjelta AR and Dyrstad SM. Relationship
between velocity at anaerobic threshold and factors
affecting velocity at anaerobic threshold in elite distance
runners. Int J Appl Sports Sci 2012; 24: 8–17.
62. Tanaka K, Watanabe H, Konishi Y, et al. Longitudinal
associations between anaerobic threshold and distance
134
running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
1986; 55: 248–252.
63. Laursen PB and Jenkins DG. The scientific basis for
high-intensity interval training: Optimising training pro-
grammes and maximising performance in highly trained
endurance athletes. Sports Med 2002; 32: 53–73.
64. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR and Wilkinson M. Is
there an optimal training intensity for enhancing the
View publication stats
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(1)
maximal oxygen uptake of distance runners?: Empirical
research findings, current opinions, physiological ration-
ale and practical recommendations. Sports Med 2006; 36:
117–132.
65. Paton CD and Hopkins WG. Seasonal changes in power
of competitive cyclists: Implication for monitoring per-
formance. J Sci Med Sport 2005; 8: 375–381.