Training

Conventional Training Programs

Part 3

by Richard Gibbens

Our investigation has revealed that intensity and duration both heavily influence performance and that frequency of training plays a minor role in performance.  Furthermore, we have seen that when the intensity of training, the duration of training, or the volume of intense training is increased performance also increases.  Training programs of increasing weekly mileage that include increases in the duration, intensity, or volume of intense training will result in improved performance.  Training programs of higher weekly mileage that do not include increased duration, intensity, or volume of intense training will not produce significant improvements.

With these observations in mind, we now turn our attention to the examination of popular, conventional training programs that include significant increases in weekly mileage and are generally believed to improve performance.  Specifically we want to examine changes in the duration, intensity, and volume of intense training in these programs to see what changes, if any, in these variables are included in these programs.  We will examine three programs that are not only popular but are also typical of modern training methods and recommendations.

The Competitive Runner’s Handbook

In 1977 Bob Glover and Shelly-lynn Florence Glover first published The Competitive Runner’s Handbook and it has been continuously in print every since then.  The most recent edition, completely revised, was released in 1999.  The authors distinguish 4 categories of runners based on race performance – novice/ intermediate competitor, basic competitor, competitor/advanced competitor, and local champion.  Recommended training programs for various race distances are provided for each class of runner which include recommended weekly mileage, longest run distance, frequency of training, and speed workouts.  An outline of their general recommendations are detailed in table 10 (23).

Table 10:  Glover and Florence-Glover - Recommended weekly training mileage, long run, weekly frequency, and volume of intensity for different runner classifications

On the topic of weekly mileage, the Glovers’ suggest moderation.  They write,

“You need to put mileage in the bank – lots of it in progressive, moderate doses, accumulated day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.  Training mileage is the backbone of every runner’s program.  Too little and you fade before the finish line; too much and you don’t make it to the starting line healthy.  A balance is needed.” 

However, they also go on to write,

“Should you run as much per week as you can get away with, or run as little as you can get away with?  For most runners the commonsense answer is somewhere in between…Let the elites have their triple-digit mileage weeks.  The average runner needs much less to both improve and be healthy.”

A careful examination of the Glovers’ program reveals they recommend an increase in weekly mileage based on race performance, with the slowest performers running the least weekly mileage and the fastest runners running the highest weekly mileage (range 10 mpw – 80 mpw).  Each increase in weekly mileage is accompanied by an increase in the distance of the longest run.  As an example, for the ½ marathon the recommended long run for novice competitors is 13 miles while that for a local competitor it is 20 miles.  The volume of intense training also increases for each faster classification of runners.  For the ½ marathon novice runners peak at 4 weeks of 6 miles of intense running while local champions peak at 7 weeks of 8 miles and 1 week of 12 miles of intense running – a considerably higher volume of intense running for the fastest runners than that for the slowest runners.

Their recommended changes in training frequency are much smaller than changes in the length of the long run or the volume of intense training.  They begin with a training frequency of 4 - 5 days per week for the slower 5k runners increasing to a peak of just 6-7 days per week for the local champion training for the marathon.

In summary, following the guidance of the Glovers when your performance improves sufficiently to allow you to move up to the next higher classification you increase your weekly mileage, duration of long run, and volume of intensity. 

Set aside their classification of runners for a moment and consider the Glovers’ program with respect to our prediction that programs that increase duration, intensity, and volume of intense training will produce better performance.  Note that accompanying each increase in the performance classification is an increase in both the duration and volume of long runs and the volume of intense training, which we know will produce improved performance.  These increases would explain improvements that occur from following this program.

Road Racing for Serious Runners

Pete Pfitzinger, two time Olympian and exercise physiologist, and Scott Douglas, former editor-in-chief for Running Times magazine, teamed up and wrote the book Road Racing for Serious Runners, published in 1999.  In their book they proposed “multispeed training” for race distances from 5k to the Marathon.  Training recommendations are summarized in table 11 (24).

Table 11:  Pfitzinger & Douglas – recommended peak weekly mileage and long run for different runner classifications

Pfitzinger and Douglas classify training with respect to the competitive distance to be run (5k, 8-10k, 15k-1/2 marathon, and marathon) and the number of miles to be run each week.  They provide training programs that range from less than 20 miles per week to more than 60 miles per week, depending on the competitive distance and the goals of the athlete.  In their book Advanced Marathoning they state “There is some benefit, therefore, in doing relatively high mileage.” They also state “…racing performance improves with increased mileage…” (25). Even though they are discussing mileage in relation to marathon performance their views on the effectiveness of weekly mileage are clear.

An examination of their recommended training program reveals that, like the Glovers, Pfitzinger and Douglas recommend increases in the distance of the long run with each increase in weekly mileage.  They recommend a long run of 7 miles for the 20 miles per week 5k runner and increase steadily from there until reaching a peak of 22 miles per week for the marathon runner training more than 60 miles per week.  With one exception the shortest recommended long run distance is further than the distance to be raced – 7 miles for the 5k, 9 miles for the 10k, 17 miles for the ½ marathon, and 22 miles for the marathon (few marathon training programs recommend a long run longer than 22 miles).

Their recommended change in the volume of training intensity is not as pronounced as the Glovers.  They do recommend a general increase in the volume of intensity as the competitive distance and weekly training mileage increase, but the change is not as significant as that recommended by the Glovers.  For a 5k runner training at just 20 miles per week they recommend 4 weeks of twice weekly intense training session as compared to 11 weeks of twice weekly intense training for the 5k runner training more than 40 miles per week.  For the marathon they recommend either 15 or 16 total intense sessions irrespective of the weekly training mileage.

In terms of training frequency they do not prescribe a set number of workouts per week.  Instead they suggest scheduling the key recommended workouts for that week and then adding in additional weekly runs at an easy pace to reach the goal mileage for that particular week.

In summary, as would be expected the same trend of increasing the distance of the long run and the volume of intensity with increases in weekly mileage is evident in the training recommendations of Pfitzinger and Douglas.  These increases would explain improvements in performance that result from following this program.

Arthur Lydiard

Considered by some to be the most influential coach in the past 50 years, Arthur Lydiard’s running philosophy has spawned large numbers of devoted fans.  His training principles are believed to be employed by leading coaches and athletes the world over.  Arthur spent many years refining his training system, completing the major details in the 1950s.  Lydiard wrote several books over the years and while each contained subtle changes to his training systems, the basics of his system did not change.  More than any other element, his program is known for his prescription of running high weekly mileage, generally 100+ miles per week.  Arthur believed that the athlete first needed to develop a significant aerobic base by running a high weekly mileage, all at an easy pace. 

“The first step has to be to develop the cardio and blood vascular systems to high steady state…That means a big initial mileage.  You concentrate initially for several months on purely aerobic running.  Fast aerobic running is possible, keeping the effort just below that point where it can overbalance into anaerobic running.  You must do as much of this aerobic running as you can.  The minimum is three months.  Four months is better, five is better still but anything less than three months is not enough.” (26)

In order to build weekly mileage to a peak Lydiard recommends training daily and performing three long runs per week.  This is how Arthur described long runs for novice marathon training. 

“Allow three days a week for long runs – what you consider long depends on your level of fitness – but the aim eventually should be 90 minutes on two days and about two hours or more on one day.  That extra-long run could be increased every four or five weeks to take you near to the actual time you would take to run the marathon distance.” 

Table 12 sums Arthur’s recommended weekly training during the base building phase for distances from 5 km to the marathon (26).

Table 12:  Lydiard’s base building weekly training plan for various distances

Once the athlete has built an adequate base, Arthur then has the athlete transition to higher intensity running and a greater volume of intense training, accomplished by having the runner train in phases of different lengths and with specific training goals for each phase (26).  These phases are:

Transition period – 4 weeks

Anaerobic period – 4 weeks

Coordination work – 6 weeks

Racing period

The increase in volume of intense training during these phases is accomplished by substituting harder, more intense workouts for the easier, shorter training runs conducted in the base building phase.  The runner does not increase the frequency of training though.  During the higher intensity phases of training Lydiard has the runner continue to perform at least one weekly long run.  Table 13 illustrates his recommended training plan four weeks prior to various competitive distances (24).

Table 13:  Lydiard’s weekly training plan 4 weeks prior to competitive event

As noted in the above Lydiard quote and the review of his training recommendations, during the base building phase Lydiard puts great emphasis on the long runs. He has the runner increase the distance of the long run till it reaches a peak of 2 or more hours.  For novice marathoners he recommends increasing the distance of the longest run to equal the anticipated marathon completion time.

During those periods of higher intensity training Lydiard has the runner replace some of the easier, shorter runs with progressively more intense workouts, while also generally maintaining the longest runs.  So, instead of just adding additional runs and thus increasing the frequency of training, Lydiard has the runner transition from easier pace running to harder pace running without a change in the overall frequency of training.

As we have seen, Lydiard’s training recommendations are in accordance with our understanding of the primary influence intensity and duration exert on performance.  As expected of a program that is generally believed to significantly improve performance, Lydiard’s training system significant increases in the distance of the longest run and includes a large volume of intense training.  The increases in duration and intensity would explain improvements that occur in runners following this program.

Conventional Training Programs Recap

Our review of the training recommendations of the Glovers, Pfitzinger & Douglas, and Arthur Lydiard shows that each increase in recommended weekly mileage is accompanied by an increase in the duration of the long run and general increases in the volume of intense training.

Additionally, our examination of the recommended training programs also reveals that increases in weekly mileage are mostly accomplished by increasing the duration of the daily workouts, not increasing frequency of training.  For example, the Glovers recommend a range of training frequency of just 4 – 7 times per week.  The Glovers recommend 4 workouts per week for a 5k runner running 10-20 miles per week while they recommend just 6 workouts per week when training up to 60 miles per week.  Despite an increase in weekly mileage of as much as 50 mpw for the 5k runner (from a low of 10 mpw to a high of 60 mpw), training frequency only increased by 2 workouts per week.  This means that the bulk of the increase in weekly mileage is accomplished by increasing the duration of the workouts.  Lydiard recommends increasing weekly mileage to as high as 100 mpw while training just 7 days per week.  Despite what some may say about the importance of frequency of training, it would seem that the research and conventional training methods as evidenced by the recommendations of these authors are in agreement that frequency of training does not exert a strong influence on performance.

While intensity is not a component of weekly mileage it also notable that increases in weekly training mileage are accompanied by increases in the volume of intense training.  We know that intensity of effort exerts the most dominant influence on performance and in support of this view we see that the training recommendations of all three programs generally include increases in the volume of intense training with each increase in weekly mileage.  During a 12 week training program for 5k runners running 10-20 mpw the Glovers recommend 4 intense workouts totaling 4 miles per workout.  During a 12 week training program for 5k runners training up to 60 mpw they recommend 5 intense workouts totaling 7 miles per workout, an increase of 218% in the volume of intense training.  Note also that the increase in volume of intense training is mostly accomplished by increasing the duration of the intense workouts (from 4 miles total per workout to 7 miles total per workout) and only marginally by increasing the frequency of intense workouts (increase from 4 to 5 total intense workouts).  Lydiard recommends replacing some of the easier, aerobic runs with more intense workouts, instead of increasing the frequency of training with additional intense workouts.  Again, it seems that that the research and conventional wisdom are again in agreement that intensity plays a principle role in performance improvements and that frequency of training is only a minor influencer of performance.

Summary

We began this paper by asking if increasing mileage improved performance and, if it did improve performance, how did it do so?  We now have the answers to our questions.  Does increasing mileage improve performance?  Yes, it does with some important caveats though.  If the increase in weekly mileage is accompanied by an increase in the distance of the long run, an increase in training intensity, or an increase in the volume of intense training performance will improve.  If an increase in weekly mileage does not include one or more of these three factors, performance will not measurably improve. 

Research reveals that both intensity and duration exert a primary influence on performance, though intensity is clearly the more potent of the two.  Furthermore, research shows that increases in intensity and duration cause significant improvements in performance.  Conversely, frequency of training plays a minor role in performance, with increases in training frequency resulting in small performance improvements.  An examination of three popular training programs that are generally believe to improve performance from increasing weekly mileage has shown that, as predicted by our theory, these programs all increase the distance of the long run and generally increase the volume of intense training.  These changes in duration and intensity explain for why these programs of increasing mileage improve performance.

References:

1. Hickson R, Bomze H, Holloszy J. Linear Increase in aerobic power induced by a strenuous program of endurance exercise  J. Appl. Physiol.: Respirat. Environ. Exercise Physiol. 1976: 42(3): 372-376
2. Hickson R, Foster C, Pollock M, Galassi T, Rich S.  Reduced training intensities and loss of aerobic power, endurance, and cardiac growth  J. Appl. Physiol. 1985: 58(2): 492-499
3. Mikesell K, Dudley G. Influence of intense endurance training on aerobic power of competitive distance runners Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 1984: 16(4): 371-375.
4. Gaskill S, Serfass R, Bacharach D, Kelly J.  Responses to training in cross-country skiers  Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 1999: 31(8): 1211-1217.
5. Billat V, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein J.  Physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners  Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001: 33(12): 2089-2097.
6. Billat V, Lepretre P, Heugas A, Laurench M, Salim D, Koralsztein P.  Training and bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female Kenyan runners  Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003: 35(2): 297-304.
7. Hickson R, Kanakis C, Davis J, Moore A, Rich S.  Reduced training duration effects on aerobic power, endurance, and cardiac growth  J Appl Physio 1982: 53(1): 225-229
8. Dudley G, Abraham W, Terjung R. Influence of exercise intensity and duration on biochemical adaptations in skeletal muscle  J Appl Physiol 1982: 53(4): 844-850
9.  Pollock M, Gettman L, Milesis C, et al Effects of frequency and duration of training on attrition and incidence of injury Med Sci Sports Exerc 1977: 9: 31-6
10.  Hansen A, Fischer C, Plomgaard P, Anderson J, Saltin B, Pederson B.  Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once daily  J Appl Physiol  2005: 98: 93-99.
11.   Wenger H, Bell G.  The interactions of intensity, frequency and duration of exercise training in altering cardiorespiratory fitness  Sports Medicine 1986: 3: 346-356
12.   Hickson R Rosenkoetter M.  Reduced training frequencies and maintenance of increased aerobic power  Med Sci Sports Exer 1981 13(1) 13-16
13.   Crews T, Robers J.  Effect of Interaction of frequency and intensity of training  Res Q 1976: 47(1): 48-55
14.  Pollock M, Cureton T, Greninger L.  Effects of frequency of training on working capacity, cardiovascular function, and body composition of adult men  Med Sci Sports Exerc 1969 1(2) 70-74
15.   Busso T, Benoit H, Bonnefoy R, Reasson L, Lacour J.  Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout  J Appl Physiol 2002: 92: 572-580
16.   Dolgener F, Kolkhorst F, Whitsett D. Long slow distance training in novice marathoners  Res Q Exer Sport 1994: 65(4): 339-346
17.   Mutton D, Loy S, Rogers D, Holland G, Vincent W, Heng M.  Effect of run vs. combined cycle/run training on VO2max and running performance  Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993: 25(12): 1393-1397
18.   Franklin B, Forgac M, Hellerstein H.  Accuracy of predicted marathon time: relationship of training mileage to performance  Res Q 1978: 49(4): 450-459
19.   Grant S, Sharp R, Aitchison T.  First time marathoners and distance training  Brit J Sports Med 1984 18(4): 241-243
20.   King A, Haskell W, Young D, Oka R, Stefanick M.  Long-term effects of varying intensities and formats of physical activity on participation rates, fitness, and lipoproteins in men and women aged 50 to 65 years  Circulation 1995: 15(91): 2596-604
21.   Iwasaki K, Zhang R, Zuckerman J, Levine B.  Dose-response relationship of the cardiovascular adaptation to endurance training in healthy adults: how much training for what benefit  J Appl Physiol 2003 95 1575-1583
22.   Coetzer P, Noakes T, Sanders B, Lambert M, Bosch A, Wiggins T, Dennis S.  Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners  J Appl Physiol  1993 75(4) 1822-1827
23.   Glover B, Glover S. The Competitive Runner’s Handbook, Penguin Books, 1999
24.   Pfitzinger P, Douglas S. Road Racing for Serious Runners Human Kinetics  1999