Og så? Hvorfor skal jeg tro det programmet er noe bra?
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Mar;37(3):496-504. Links
How do endurance runners actually train? Relationship with competition performance.
Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, Foster C, Lucia A.
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, European University of Madrid, SPAIN.
jonathan.esteve@fme.afd.uem.esPURPOSE: To quantify the relationship between total training load and running performance during the most important competitions of the season (national cross-country championships, 4.175- and 10.130-km races). METHODS: Eight well-trained, subelite endurance runners (age (mean+/-SD): 23+/-2 yr; VO2max: 70.0+/-7.3 mL.kg.min) performed a maximal cardiorespiratory exercise test before the training period to determine ventilatory threshold (VT) and respiratory compensation threshold (RCT). Heart rate was continuously recorded using telemetry during each training session over a 6-month macrocycle, designed to achieve peak performance during the aforementioned cross-country races, lasting from late August to the time that these races were held, that is, mid-February. This allowed us to quantify the total cumulative time spent in three intensity zones calculated as zone 1 (low intensity, lower than the VT); zone 2 (moderate intensity, between VT and RCT); and zone 3 (high intensity, above the RCT). RESULTS: Total training time in zone 1 (4581+/-979 min) was significantly higher (P<0.001) than that accumulated in zones 2 (1354+/-583 min) and 3 (487+/-154 min). Total time in zone 2 was significantly higher than time in zone 3 (P<0.05). A correlation coefficient of r=-0.79 (P=0.06) and r=-0.97 (P=0.008) was found between the total training time spent in zone 1 and performance time during the short and long cross-country races, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that total training time spent at low intensities might be associated with improved performance during highly intense endurance events, especially if the event duration is approximately 35 min. Interventional studies (i.e., improving or reducing training time in zone 1) are needed to corroborate our findings and to elucidate the physiological mechanisms behind them.Esteve-Lanao J, Foster C, Seiler S, Lucia A.
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
jonathan.esteve@uem.esThe purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 2 training programs differing in the relative contribution of training volume, clearly below vs. within the lactate threshold/maximal lactate steady state region on performance in endurance runners. Twelve subelite endurance runners (who are specialists in track events, mostly the 5,000-m race usually held during spring-summer months and who also participate in cross-country races [9-12 km] during fall and winter months) were randomly assigned to a training program emphasizing low-intensity (subthreshold) (Z1) or moderately high-intensity (between thresholds) (Z2) training intensities. At the start of the study, the subjects performed a maximal exercise test to determine ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation thresholds (RCT), which allowed training to be controlled based on heart rate during each training session over a 5-month training period. Subjects performed a simulated 10.4-km cross-country race before and after the training period. Training was quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity; <VT), zone 2 (moderate intensity; between VT and RCT), and zone 3 (high intensity; >RCT). The contribution of total training time spent in zones 1 and 2 was controlled to have relatively more low-intensity training in Z1 (80.5 +/- 1.8% and 11.8 +/- 2.0%, respectively) than in Z2 (66.8 +/- 1.1% and 24.7 +/- 1.5%, respectively), whereas the contribution of high-intensity (zone 3) training was similar (8.3 +/- 0.7% [Z1] and 8.5 +/- 1.0% [Z2]). The magnitude of the improvement in running performance was significantly greater (p = 0.03) in Z1 (-157 +/- 13 seconds) than in Z2 (-121.5 +/- 7.1 seconds).
These results provide experimental evidence supporting the value of a relatively large percentage of low-intensity training over a long period ( approximately 5 months), provided that the contribution of high-intensity training remains sufficient.