Effects of Different Training Intensity Distribution in Recreational Runners

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the impact of two different training intensity distributions in terms of conditional and performance parameters and spent time to training in recreational athletes.Methods: Two different training intensity distribution model were performed for 8 weeks by 38 recreational runners. Runners recruited were randomly assigned to 2 different training models based on HR intensity detected with maximal test. The percentage distribution splitted in zone 1, 2, and 3 were by 77/3/20 and 40/50/10 in polarized endurance training group (PET) and focused endurance training (FOC) group, respectively. Programs were balanced for total training impulse (TRIMP). To evaluate effects of training, before and after treatment were performed a maximal exercise test to determine Maximal Oxygen Uptake (V'O 2max ), Ventilatory Threshold (VT), respiratory-compensation point (RCT) Running Economy (RE), and 2 Km performance. To investigate the effects of training on muscular performance were performed one repetition maximum (1 RM), squat jump (SJ), and counter movement jump (CMJ).Results: Both groups significantly improved their velocity at V'O 2max (3.2 and 4.0%), at VT (4.0 and 3.2%), RCT (5.7 and 3.4%), the average velocity in 2 Km performance (3.5 and 3.0%) and RE (−5.3 and −8.7%) for PET and FOC, respectively for each variable. No differences were found between the groups on any parameter investigated except about the total training time (PET = 29.9 ± 3.1 h and FOC = 24.8 ± 2.0 h). Conclusion: Focused Endurance Training obtains similar improvements than PolarizedEndurance Training saving 17% of training time in recreational runners.

Relationship between Biological, Training, and Physical Fitness Variables in the Expression of Performance in Non-Professional Runners

“…Unlike observed in previous researches [ 14 , 21 , 56 ], in the present study, training variables were not a significant predictor for running pace. These results can be associated with aspects related to social and built environments (e.g., socioeconomic conditions, place of residence, available places to practice), that can influence training practice [ 57 , 58 ] and, as a consequence, performance.…”

Is there any difference between “amateur” and “recreational” runners? A latent class analysis

“…Most likely, this result can be associated with the motivation for the practice, given that runners in this class are more prone to report "performance increases" as the main reason to be involved in the practice. Since motivation, as above cited, can be seen as the "flagship" to training commitment, runners from this class are more likely to present higher training volume (>35 km/week) and frequency (>3 training sessions/week) than the recreational ones, and these characteristics can lead to an improvement in physical capacities, physiological variables 39,40 , body composition, and consequently improvement in performance 29 . Surely, having better performance is not exclusive to the amateur runners, but this group has more chances to present this trait given this result for variables previously presented.…”

Running Performance Variability among Runners from Different Brazilian States: A Multilevel Approach

“…It is well-known that the manipulation of training variables can increase performance given their effect on both physical fitness and physiological capabilities [ 52 ]. In the present study, training frequency and volume were included in the analysis because they are frequently reported as training behavior [ 53 ], and were significantly associated with the runners’ performance ( p < 0.001).…”