training to enhance the physiological determinants of … ps mest 2015/de/sg-midgley... · training...

Sports Med 2007; 37 (10): 857-880REVIEW ARTICLE 0112-1642/07/0010-0857/$44.95/0

© 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

Training to Enhance the PhysiologicalDeterminants of Long-DistanceRunning PerformanceCan Valid Recommendations be Given to Runners andCoaches Based on Current Scientific Knowledge?

Adrian W. Midgley,1 Lars R. McNaughton1 and Andrew M. Jones2

1 Department of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, England2 School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, England

ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8571. Training and Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8592. Training Quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8593. Enhancing the Maximal Oxygen Uptake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8644. Enhancing the Lactate Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8665. Enhancing Running Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8706. Can Valid Training Recommendations be Given to Runners and Coaches Based on Current

Scientific Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8727. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875

This article investigates whether there is currently sufficient scientific knowl-Abstractedge for scientists to be able to give valid training recommendations to long-distance runners and their coaches on how to most effectively enhance themaximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold and running economy. Relatively fewtraining studies involving trained distance runners have been conducted, and thesestudies have often included methodological factors that make interpretation of thefindings difficult. For example, the basis of most of the studies was to include oneor more specific bouts of training in addition to the runners’ ‘normal training’,which was typically not described or only briefly described. The training status ofthe runners (e.g. off-season) during the study period was also typically notdescribed. This inability to compare the runners’ training before and during thetraining intervention period is probably the main factor that hinders the interpreta-tion of previous training studies. Arguably, the second greatest limitation is thatonly a few of the studies included more than one experimental group. Consequent-ly, there is no comparison to allow the evaluation of the relative efficacy of theparticular training intervention. Other factors include not controlling the runners’training load during the study period, and employing small sample sizes that resultin low statistical power. Much of the current knowledge relating to chronicadaptive responses to physical training has come from studies using sedentary

858 Midgley et al.

individuals; however, directly applying this knowledge to formulate trainingrecommendations for runners is unlikely to be valid. Therefore, it would bedifficult to argue against the view that there is insufficient direct scientificevidence to formulate training recommendations based on the limited research.Although direct scientific evidence is limited, we believe that scientists can stillformulate worthwhile training recommendations by integrating the informationderived from training studies with other scientific knowledge. This knowledgeincludes the acute physiological responses in the various exercise domains, thestructures and processes that limit the physiological determinants of long-distancerunning performance, and the adaptations associated with their enhancement. Inthe future, molecular biology may make an increasing contribution in identifyingeffective training methods, by identifying the genes that contribute to the variationin maximal oxygen uptake, the lactate threshold and running economy, as well asthe biochemical and mechanical signals that induce these genes. Scientists shouldbe cautious when giving training recommendations to runners and coaches basedon the limited available scientific knowledge. This limited knowledge highlightsthat characterising the most effective training methods for long-distance runners isstill a fruitful area for future research.

The physiological determinants of long-distance several prominent running coaches, whereas contri-running performance have been well documented, butions from scientists have been relativelyand include maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max),[1-3] small.[11,21,22] This may be due to the reluctance oflactate threshold[3-5] and running economy (figure runners and coaches to acknowledge the potential1).[3,6,7] These three determinants explain >70% of merit of scientific research for improving trainingthe between-subject variance in long-distance run- methods, or because scientific knowledge is tooning performance.[8] Although athletic performance limited to allow worthwhile contributions. Sportsis known to be related to genetic-[9,10] and training- scientists sometimes give training advice to runnersrelated[11] factors, the former is normally a fixed during sports science support work, or after runnersfactor (gene doping[12] being the exception). In con- have participated in experimental research. Aware-trast, physical training may exert profound effects ness of the current state of scientific knowledge inon physiological adaptation and athletic perform- this area should therefore be valuable.ance.[13-15] Distance runners often seek the most

The main purpose of this article is to evaluateeffective training methods to enhance perform-whether there is currently sufficient scientificance,[16] and is probably most evident in elite run-knowledge to allow scientists to give valid trainingners where the rate of training adaptation and per-recommendations to long-distance runners and theirformance enhancement may have reached a pla-coaches on how to most effectively enhanceteau.[17] Since VO2max, lactate threshold and runningVO2max, lactate threshold and running economy.economy have been regarded as the most importantThis article focuses mainly on training interventionphysiological determinants of long-distance runningstudies (summarised in table I) that involved runnersperformance, effective training programmes forand reported changes in these physiological deter-long-distance runners should focus on their en-minants of long-distance running performance.hancement.[18] However, it is unclear which trainingTraining intervention studies involving other ath-methods are most effective.[16,17,19,20]

letes and sedentary individuals have been highlight-Current training methods have largely developeded where deemed appropriate.from the trial-and-error approach of runners and

© 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2007; 37 (10)

Training for Long-Distance Running Performance 859

sities and durations rather than threshold values,since training protocols that are not optimal wouldreduce the overall efficiency of the training pro-cess.[48] Optimising training methods may also ne-gate the need to continually increase the trainingvolumes of runners to extreme levels, which hasbeen implicated in premature stagnation of perform-ance.[49]

2. Training Quantification

Training load is the product of intensity, durationand frequency.[50] Although training loads for run-ners may be prescribed based on training volume(duration or hours multiplied by frequency), such askilometres or hours run per week,[51] this approach

Performance VO2

Mean race pace

Highest sustainablerate of ATPresynthesis

Runningeconomy

VO2maxSustainable% VO2max

Lactatethreshold

··

·

Fig. 1. Flow diagram showing that long-distance running perform-ance is predominantly determined by maximal oxygen uptake(VO2max), the lactate threshold (determines the fraction of VO2max

that can be sustained) and running economy. Performance oxygenuptake (VO2) represents the highest mean VO2 that can be sus-tained during the race. Running economy refers to how efficient therunner is at converting available energy into running speed. ATP =adenosine triphosphate. does not incorporate exercise intensity, which has

been suggested to be the most important and heavily1. Training and Adaptation debated of the variables relating to exercise pre-

scription.[52-54] Training intensity has been pre-Training-induced stress imposed on a physiologi- scribed based on percentages of maximum velocity

cal process or structure is the stimulus for adaptation or race pace,[55] made more practical by the relative-resulting in an enhanced functional capacity.[44] The ly recent development of global position systemtraining frequency of distance runners is typically (GPS) monitors.[56,57] Training intensity has alsorelatively constant,[29] with elite and sub-elite run- been based on physiological measures such as per-ners performing approximately 10–14 sessions per centages of the maximal heart rate or VO2max.[58]

week.[45] Training stress is therefore predominantly The common factor to physiological measures isimposed by the manipulation of training intensity that they are all indicators of relative physiologicaland duration.[46] Chronic adaptation will occur only strain. However, the relative percentage method hasif the training intensity is sufficient to elicit an been criticised, since it does not take into accountadaptive response.[47] This minimum intensity has between-subject differences in lactate accumulation

at particular percentages of maximal heart rate andbeen termed the training intensity threshold.[17] Sim-VO2max, and may therefore be a poor indicator ofilarly, for a given training intensity there must be aphysiological strain.[58] A more complex model oftraining duration threshold, below which no chronictraining prescription and quantification based onadaptive response occurs. The intensity and durationheart rate and training duration has been developedthresholds combined form the adaptation threshold,and termed the training impulse (TRIMP).[59] Thiswhich must be surpassed to enhance any of themethod has been further refined by the inclusion of aphysiological determinants of long-distance runningweighting factor based on blood lactate concentra-performance highlighted in figure 1. A model fortion.[60]performance enhancement based on this threshold

concept is shown in figure 2. Although the thresh- Several authors have suggested that some physio-olds define the minimum training intensity and dura- logical responses can be used to demarcate trainingtion required to elicit a chronic adaptive response, zones, with the cumulative time spent in each ofthese thresholds may not be optimal for enhancing a these training zones being indicative of the totalparticular physiological performance determinant. physiological strain over a given training peri-Distance runners should seek optimal training inten- od.[54,61] For example, the blood lactate response to


860 Midgley et al.


Tab

le I.

Sum

mar

y of

23

trai

ning

inte

rven

tion

stud

ies

that

hav

e re

port

ed c

hang

es in

the

max

imal

oxy

gen

upta

ke (

VO

2max

), la

ctat

e th

resh

old

(or

onse

t of b

lood

lact

ate

accu

mul

atio

n[O

BLA

]) o

r ru

nnin

g ec

onom

y of

tra

ined

dis

tanc

e ru

nner

s. S

tudi

es a

re o

rder

ed in

rel

atio

n to

the

mea

n re

lativ

e V

O2m

ax o

f th

e ru

nner

s pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in t

he s

tudi

es

Stu

dyS

ubje

ctsa

Age

(y)

Initi

al V

O2m

axS

tudy

Wee

kly

trai

ning

Mea

n %

impr

ovem

entb

Com

men

ts

[mea

n ±

(mL/

kg/m

in)

dura

tion

VO

2max

LT/O

BLA

RE

SD

]c[m

ean

± S

D]c

(wk)

Bill

at e

t al

.[23]

8 M

MD

R/

24 ±

371

.2 ±

5.0

80–

4wk:

1 ×

vO

BLA

, 1

× vV

O2m

ax,

2.1

1.1

6.1*

85 k

m/w

k th

roug

hout

stu

dy.

Run

ners

LDR

4 ×

60–7

0 vV

O2m

ax– 0

.43.

47.

7*di

d on

ly 8

5–90

km

/wk

easy

run

ning

2y

5–8w

k: 1

× v

OB

LA,

3 ×

vVO

2max

,be

fore

stu

dy2

× 60

–70

vVO

2max

(vO

BLA

≈85%

vV

O2m

ax)

Sjo

din

et a

l.[24]

8 M

MD

R/

2068

.7 ±

2.6

141

× vO

BLA

(20

min

) +

nor

mal

2.2

4.3*

2.8*

Run

ners

nor

mal

tra

inin

g in

clud

edLD

R(1

8–25

b )tr

aini

ng (

vOB

LA ≈

85%

vV

O2m

ax)

supr

a-O

BLA

vel

ociti

es.

Stu

dyco

nduc

ted

in t

he o

ff-se

ason

Lehm

ann

8 M

DR

/33

± 7

66.8

± 5

.64

6 d/

wk;

90–

98%

tra

inin

g vo

lum

e0.

6T

rain

ing

volu

me

incr

ease

d by

≈33

%et

al.[2

5]LD

Rat

50–

70%

long

-dis

tanc

e ra

ceea

ch w

eek

pace

; th

e re

st h

igh-

inte

nsity

inte

rval

s

Prie

st a

nd12

M C

CR

21 ±

366

.0 ±

5.9

74

× 10

4% 1

0km

d pa

ce6.

2*T

rain

ing

was

at

the

estim

ated

max

imum

Hag

an[1

4]51

.7 ±

4.8

4 ×

109%

10k

md

pace

12.3

*st

eady

-sta

te (

runn

ing

velo

city

at

2.2

mm

ol/L

blo

od la

ctat

e).

Nor

mal

tra

inin

gno

t sp

ecifi

ed

Ham

ilton

10 M

DR

28 ±

866

.0 ±

7.0

5–7

G1:

nor

mal

end

uran

ce t

rain

ing

0.5

Num

ber

of r

esis

tanc

e tr

aini

ng s

essi

ons

et a

l.[27]

(con

trol

s)4.

0ede

pend

ent

on s

ubje

ct a

vaila

bilit

yG

2: 1

–3 ×

tet

here

d m

axim

alef

fort

tre

adm

ill r

uns

at a

5%

grad

e an

d m

axim

al e

ffort

sin

gle-

leg

jum

ps r

epla

ced

part

of

norm

al t

rain

ing

Ace

vedo

and

7 M

LD

R22

± 3

65.3

± 6

.28

1 ×

90–9

5% H

Rm

ax in

terv

als

0.7

5.7*

Nor

mal

tra

inin

g 80

–105

km

/wk

atG

oldf

arb[2

8](8

5–95

% V

O2m

ax);

2 ×

far

tlek

8–19

km p

er s

essi

on.

Nor

mal

tra

inin

gar

ound

10k

m p

ace;

3–4

× L

SD

mai

ntai

ned

exce

pt 3

d LS

D t

rain

ing

was

subs

titut

ed f

or h

ighe

r in

tens

ity t

rain

ing

Tan

aka

et a

l.[29]

20 M

MD

R19

–23c

64.4

± 3

.817

2 or

mor

e ×

vLT

or

slig

htly

abo

ve4.

8*3.

8*N

orm

al t

rain

ing

incr

ease

d fr

om 9

0 km

/vL

T (

60–9

0 m

in)

+ n

orm

alw

k to

120

km

/wk

for

stud

y pe

riod.

trai

ning

(vL

T =

70

± 5%

VO

2max

)N

orm

al t

rain

ing

inte

nsity

not

spe

cifie

d

Con

tinue

d ne

xt p

age



Tab

le I

. C

ontd

Stu

dyS

ubje

ctsa

Age

(y)

Initi

al V

O2m

axS

tudy

Wee

kly

trai

ning

Mea

n %

impr

ovem

entb

Com

men

ts

[mea

n ±

(mL/

kg/m

in)

dura

tion

VO

2max

LT/O

BLA

RE

SD

]c[m

ean

± S

D]c

(wk)

Dan

iels

et

al.[3

0]15

DR

22 ±

363

.9 ±

4.1

8In

crea

se in

tra

inin

g vo

lum

e fr

om0.

0– 0

.75

subj

ects

= c

ontin

uous

fas

t ru

ns;

520

to

30km

eas

y ru

nnin

g (2

mo

subj

ects

= 1

00–6

00m

spr

ints

; 5

cont

rol p

erio

d) t

o 50

–70k

msu

bjec

ts =

600

–120

0m r

uns

(gro

ups

pool

ed f

or a

naly

ses)

. N

orm

al t

rain

ing

not

spec

ified

Paa

vola

inen

et

10 M

CC

R23

± 3

63.7

± 2

.79

G1:

nor

mal

tra

inin

g (c

ontr

ols)

4.9*

0.8

– 1.0

End

uran

ce t

rain

ing

= 8

4% <

vLT

(62

%al

.[31]

G2:

32%

of

norm

al t

rain

ing

– 1.3

1.7

7.7*

VO

2max

) an

d 16

% >

vLT

(86

% V

O2m

ax).

repl

aced

with

spo

rt-s

peci

ficS

tudy

con

duct

ed in

the

off-

seas

onex

plos

ive

stre

ngth

tra

inin

g

Sm

ith e

t al

.[32]

5 M

MD

R23

± 4

61.5

± 6

.64

2 ×

inte

rval

s at

vV

O2m

ax;

1 ×

4.9

Nor

mal

tra

inin

g in

clud

ed L

SD

, te

mpo

,co

ntin

uous

at

60%

vV

O2m

axsp

eed

and

over

-spe

ed w

ork,

and

wei

ght

trai

ning

Sm

ith e

t al

.[33]

18 M

25 ±

761

.4 ±

5.2

42

× in

terv

als

at v

VO

2max

; 1

×5.

02.

0N

orm

al t

rain

ing

not

spec

ified

MD

R/

cont

inuo

us a

t 60

% v

VO

2max

f

LDR

/Tr

Sla

win

sky

6 LD

R27

± 4

61.2

± 6

.08

2 ×

v∆50

inte

rval

s (≈

93%

0.7

2.5

3.6*

Nor

mal

tra

inin

g no

t sp

ecifi

ed.

Stu

dyet

al.[3

4]vV

O2m

ax);

3 ×

con

tinuo

us a

tco

nduc

ted

durin

g re

turn

to

trai

ning

afte

r60

–70%

vV

O2m

axre

cove

ry f

rom

com

petit

ion

perio

d

Mik

esel

l and

7 M

LD

R24

± 9

61.1

± 3

.76

3 ×

‘all-

out’

runs

(40

min

) el

iciti

ng4.

1T

rain

ing

was

alte

rnat

e da

ys o

f ru

nnin

gD

udle

y[35]

hear

t ra

tes

≥190

bpm

; 3

×an

d cy

clin

g. I

nstr

ucte

d to

run

as

far

ascy

clin

g in

terv

als

at ≈

95%

poss

ible

dur

ing

runs

. N

orm

al r

unni

ngpV

O2m

axm

ileag

e de

crea

sed

by 6

0%.

Nor

mal

trai

ning

not

spe

cifie

d

Laffi

te e

t al

.[36]

7 M

MD

R/

25 ±

460

.6 ±

4.4

82

× v∆

50 in

terv

als;

3 ×

LS

D4.

00.

65.

4*N

orm

al t

rain

ing

not

spec

ified

LDR

(v∆5

0 =

93

± 1%

)

Bic

kham

7 D

R28

± 8

58.1

± 5

.36

3 ×

sprin

t in

terv

als

(90–

100%

– 2.2

Sub

ject

s ha

d no

rec

ent

hist

ory

of s

prin

tet

al.[3

7]pe

rcei

ved

max

imum

effo

rt)

+tr

aini

ng.

Nor

mal

tra

inin

g ≈5

0 km

/wk

norm

al t

rain

ing

sub-

vLT

Spu

rrs

et a

l.[38]

8 M

DR

25 ±

457

.6 ±

7.7

6G

1: r

egul

ar e

ndur

ance

tra

inin

g6.

4– 0

.2N

orm

al t

rain

ing

= 6

0–80

km

/wk

(con

trol

s)3.

35.

7*(in

tens

ity u

nspe

cifie

d).

No

hist

ory

ofG

2: a

s G

1 +

2–3

× p

lyom

etric

stru

ctur

ed p

lyom

etric

tra

inin

gtr

aini

ng

Con

tinue

d ne

xt p

age

862 Midgley et al.


Tab

le I

. C

ontd

Stu

dyS

ubje

ctsa

Age

(y)

Initi

al V

O2m

axS

tudy

Wee

kly

trai

ning

Mea

n %

impr

ovem

entb

Com

men

ts

[mea

n ±

(mL/

kg/m

in)

dura

tion

VO

2max

LT/O

BLA

RE

SD

]c[m

ean

± S

D]c

(wk)

Bill

at e

t al

.[39]

9 M

LD

R48

± 3

55.1

± 4

.26

2 ×

vMLS

S (

30–6

0 m

in);

3 ×

LS

D3.

6*3.

3*P

revi

ousl

y on

ly p

erfo

rmed

LS

D t

rain

ing

(vM

LSS

≈85

% V

O2m

ax)

(65

± 17

min

/wk)

. T

wo

LSD

ses

sion

sre

plac

ed b

y vM

LSS

Fra

nch

et a

l.[40]

36 M

DR

30 ±

554

.8 ±

3.0

6G

1: 3

× in

terv

als

at 1

06%

6.0*

3.0*

Tra

inin

g 4w

k be

fore

stu

dy a

vera

ged

2.2

vVO

2max

3.6*

0.9

h/w

k at

≈65

% H

Rm

ax.

The

vol

ume

ofG

2: 3

× in

terv

als

at 1

32%

5.9*

3.1*

LSD

tra

inin

g w

as a

djus

ted

so t

hat

vVO

2max

runn

ers

mai

ntai

ned

the

sam

e vo

lum

eG

3: 3

× c

ontin

uous

at

94%

as b

efor

e th

e st

udy

vVO

2max

Sub

ject

s al

so p

erfo

rmed

1–3

LSD

ses

sion

s

Hof

fman

[13]

8 M

/F D

R25

± 7

52.0

± 7

.16

G1:

1 ×

vV

T (

20 m

in)

+ n

orm

al8.

1*N

orm

al t

rain

ing

aver

aged

≈42

km

/wk

trai

ning

14.1

*(in

tens

ity n

ot s

peci

fied)

. vV

T t

rain

ing

G1:

3 ×

vV

T (

20 m

in)

+ n

orm

alre

plac

ed t

he s

ame

volu

me

of n

orm

altr

aini

ngtr

aini

ng s

o th

at s

ubje

cts

mai

ntai

ned

sam

e tr

aini

ng v

olum

e as

bef

ore

the

stud

y

Yos

hida

6 F

MD

R/

19 ±

151

.8 ±

3.2

86

× vO

BLA

(20

min

) +

nor

mal

2.5

10.3

*2.

8N

orm

al t

rain

ing

≈120

min

at

vLT

et a

l.[15]

LDR

trai

ning

(vO

BLA

≈91

% v

VO

2max

)

John

ston

6 F

DR

30 ±

250

.5 ±

5.4

10G

1: 4

–5 ×

ste

ady-

stat

e ru

nnin

g– 1

.90.

0G

1 an

d G

2 gr

oups

bot

h di

d 32

–48

km/

et a

l.[41]

(con

trol

s)– 2

.14.

0*w

k fo

r 12

wk

prio

r to

and

dur

ing

the

G2:

as

G1

+ 3

× s

tren

gth

trai

ning

stud

y. S

ubje

cts

inst

ruct

ed t

o m

aint

ain

sam

e en

dura

nce

trai

ning

as

befo

re t

hest

udy

perio

d. T

he s

tren

gth

trai

ning

was

addi

tiona

l in

G1.

Sub

ject

s ha

d no

tw

eigh

t tr

aine

d fo

r ≥3

mo

Tur

ner

et a

l.[42]

10 M

/F D

R31

± 9

50.4

± 8

.06

G1:

nor

mal

end

uran

ce t

rain

ing

0.4

0.0

Sub

ject

s in

stru

cted

to

cont

inue

nor

mal

(con

trol

s)0.

02.

3*tr

aini

ng (

not

spec

ified

)G

2: a

s G

1 +

3 ×

ply

omet

rictr

aini

ng

Con

tinue

d ne

xt p

age


an incremental exercise test can be used to approxi-mate the range of heart rates and running velocitiesin the light (or moderate), heavy and severe exerciseintensity ‘domains’ associated with continuous ex-ercise.[62,63] These domains are characterised bymarkedly different blood acid-base and pulmonarygas exchange responses.[62-64] This approach to-wards training prescription has also been used withexercise intensity domains demarcated by ventilato-ry measures such as the ventilatory threshold andrespiratory compensation point.[54,65,66] Coaches andgoverning bodies have used additional zones, butthe physiological rationale underlying this approachhas been criticised, since the zones are not based ondefinable physiological events.[49,54] Particularchronic physiological adaptations may be expectedto be largely exercise domain specific, and futureresearch should explore this possibility.

The distribution of training loads over the weeks,months and years of an athlete’s training plan is animportant but complex aspect of prescribing long-term training known as periodisation.[67] Periodisa-tion allows runners to tolerate periods of relativelyhigh training loads necessary to optimise perform-ance, by following a systematic progression in train-ing load and physiological strain, interspersed withperiods of low training loads that are necessary forregeneration to avoid overtraining.[68] Training peri-odisation originated in the former Soviet Union inthe 1950s,[69] and some degree of periodisation ap-pears to have been adopted by modern distancerunners and coaches across the world.[20,65,70] How-ever, this approach to training has been criticised,[71]

and there is currently little scientific evidence tosupport the effectiveness of periodised training. It isparticularly noteworthy that world-class Africanrunners typically have not followed periodised train-ing plans.[71] Finally, it is important to highlight thatthe total training load that can be tolerated and thatresults in peak performance is specific to each indi-vidual.[72]


Tab

le I

. C

ontd

Stu

dyS

ubje

ctsa

Age

(y)

Initi

al V

O2m

axS

tudy

Wee

kly

trai

ning

Mea

n %

impr

ovem

entb

Com

men

ts

[mea

n ±

(mL/

kg/m

in)

dura

tion

VO

2max

LT/O

BLA

RE

SD

]c[m

ean

± S

D]c

(wk)

Ols

en e

t al

.[43]

12 M

DR

25 ±

445

.9 ±

3.6

8G

1: 2

× in

terv

als

at 9

2%6.

2R

ecre

atio

nal r

unne

rs.

Nor

mal

tra

inin

g =

vVO

2max

+ 3

.2 k

m ‘a

ll-ou

t’ ru

n5.

4*24

–40

km/w

k (in

tens

ity n

ot s

peci

fied)

G2:

2 ×

inte

rval

s at

100

%vV

O2m

ax +

3.2

km

‘all-

out’

run

aE

xclu

ding

any

con

trol

sub

ject

s.

bW

here

per

cent

age

impr

ovem

ent

was

not

rep

orte

d, it

was

cal

cula

ted

usin

g th

e fo

llow

ing

equa

tion:

cha

nge

scor

e/in

itial

sco

re *

100

.

cT

he r

ange

is in

clud

ed w

here

eith

er t

he m

ean

or S

D w

as n

ot r

epor

ted.

d3k

m r

ace

pace

≈10

0% V

O2m

ax,

10km

rac

e pa

ce ≈

89%

VO

2max

.[26]

eT

rue

trea

tmen

t ef

fect

like

ly,

base

d on

90%

con

fiden

ce li

mits

.

fT

wo

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

s w

ere

used

but

onl

y a

smal

l diff

eren

ce in

the

inte

rval

leng

th s

epar

ated

the

tw

o gr

oups

.

bp

m =

bea

ts p

er m

inut

e; C

CR

= c

ross

-cou

ntry

run

ners

; DR

= d

ista

nce

runn

ers

(spe

cial

ity d

ista

nce

not s

peci

fied)

; F =

fem

ale;

G =

gro

up; H

Rm

ax =

max

imal

hea

rt r

ate;

LD

R =

long

-di

stan

ce r

unne

rs; L

SD

= lo

ng s

low

dis

tanc

e; L

T =

lact

ate

thre

shol

d; M

= m

ale;

MD

R =

mid

dle-

dist

ance

run

ners

; pV

O2m

ax =

pow

er o

utpu

t at V

O2m

ax; R

E =

run

ning

eco

nom

y; T

r =

tria

thle

tes;

v∆5

0 =

vel

ocity

mid

way

bet

wee

n vL

T a

nd v

VO

2max

; vL

T =

vel

ocity

at t

he la

ctat

e th

resh

old;

vM

LS

S =

vel

ocity

at t

he m

axim

al la

ctat

e st

eady

-sta

te; v

OB

LA

= v

eloc

ity a

tth

e on

set

of b

lood

lact

ate

accu

mul

atio

n; v

VO

2max

= v

eloc

ity a

t V

O2m

ax;

vVT

= v

eloc

ity a

t th

e ve

ntila

tory

thr

esho

ld;

* in

dica

tes

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant.

864 Midgley et al.

higher than that previously performed. The VO2max

enhancement may therefore have been related to anincreased training intensity rather than an increase intraining volume. Well trained runners in anotherstudy demonstrated no increase in VO2max in re-sponse to a >2-fold increase in training volume,even though training intensity was increased simul-taneously.[30] However, the percentage increase intraining volume was in relation to a 2-month pre-experimental period during which subjects were re-stricted to 20–30 km/week of easy running. Thefindings are therefore difficult to interpret. There islittle experimental evidence that increasing the vol-ume of LSD training is either effective or ineffectivefor enhancing the VO2max of well trained distancerunners, and more research is required. There is alsoan interest in identifying whether there is an LSDtraining volume threshold, beyond which noVO2max enhancement will occur.[82]

Training intensity has been regarded as the mostimportant variable that can be manipulated for

Trainingstatus

Trainingintensity

Intensity and durationthresholds attained or

surpassed

Chronic adaptiveresponse

Enhanced functionalcapacity

Performanceenhancement

Trainingduration

Adequaterecovery

Fig. 2. Model of the threshold concept relating to training-inducedstimuli (physiological stress) leading to physiological adaptationand enhanced running performance. Note that the adaptationthreshold is specific to an individual runner and the runner’s trainingstatus at any given time. VO2max enhancement,[83-85] and may explain the

increase in VO2max of distance runners during the3. Enhancing the Maximal transition between the off-season and pre-competi-Oxygen Uptake tive period, during which training intensity is typi-

cally increased.[86-89] Accordingly, some authorshave suggested that to enhance VO2max, runnersDistance runners and their coaches have typicallyshould train at 90–100% VO2max,[85] or that trainingfavoured long slow distance (LSD) training andat or very close to VO2max is most effective forcomparatively little time has been allocated to high-enhancing VO2max.[90-95] Billat et al.[45] reported thatintensity training.[70,73-75] LSD training involves rel-the VO2max of well trained distance runners in-atively high mileage of moderately paced run-creased by 5.4% (p < 0.05) in response to the inclu-ning.[22] Increasing the volume of LSD training hassion of training between 90–100% VO2max, despitebeen suggested to be ineffective for enhancing thea 10% decrease in training volume. Several otherVO2max of already well trained athletes,[76] and maystudies that incorporated training intensities ofexplain the observation that the enhancement of the90–100% VO2max reported similar but statisticallyVO2max of some well trained distance runners hasinsignificant increases in VO2max.[32,33,35,36] The sta-seemingly reached a plateau.[77-81] However, Tanakatistically insignificant results may have been type IIet al.[29] reported that increasing the training volumeerrors due to the small sample sizes and associatedof well trained distance runners from 90 to 120 km/low statistical power, making interpretation of theweek resulted in a statistically significant 4.8% in-findings difficult. Acevedo and Goldfarb[28] reportedcrease in VO2max. This study also incorporated 2that the inclusion of training close to VO2max did notdays per week of training slightly above the lactateenhance the VO2max of well trained distance run-threshold velocity (vLT), and since the runners’ners. The contrasting findings of Billat et al.[45] andnormal training was not specified, it is not knownAcevedo and Goldfarb[28] cannot be explained atwhether this represented a training intensity that was



present and do not appear to be related to the initial 95–100% VO2max has been found most effective inenhancing the VO2max of distance runners, extrapo-VO2max of the runners or the volume of high-inten-lating those findings to all protocols that allow simi-sity training performed during the study period. Twolar amounts of time at 95–100% VO2max would bestudies have reported statistically significant in-invalid.creases in the VO2max of runners in response to the

addition of training at approximately 70% and 85% Moffatt et al.[106] speculated that as VO2max isVO2max.[29,39] These studies highlight that the opti- approached, the differentiation between stimuli de-mal training intensity for enhancing the VO2max of creases. Olsen et al.[43] reported no difference in thetrained distance runners may not lie between 90% increase in VO2max of runners who trained at 92% orand 100% VO2max. Since no studies involving 100% of the velocity associated with VO2maxtrained runners have compared training at 90–100% (vVO2max), therefore supporting this view. Howev-VO2max with training intensities below this range, er, training at 92% vVO2max has been shown tothe relative efficacy of the two approaches is pres- elicit VO2max.[107] The study by Olsen et al.[43] there-ently unknown. fore does not oppose the view held by some[76,91] that

training at VO2max is optimal, or even obligatory,Midgley et al.[16] suggested that training at orfor enhancing the VO2max of well trained runners.near VO2max should place maximal stress on the

physiological processes and structures that limit Two studies that investigated intermittent train-ing at 100% VO2max reported that the mean time ranVO2max, providing the optimal stimulus for adapta-at vVO2max was 9[108] and 9.5 minutes.[109] Distancetion. In trained individuals, myocardial pressure andrunners with large differences between their vLTvolume overload reach their maximal values at theand work interval velocity have been reported toexercise intensity associated with the attainment ofhave particularly low times to exhaustion duringVO2max.[96,97] This mechanical overload is the mainintermittent training protocols designed to elicitstimulus for myocardial adaptation associated withVO2max.[110] If training at VO2max is found to be thethe enhancement of the maximal stroke vol-optimal stimulus for VO2max enhancement, it wouldume.[98,99] Since the maximal stroke volume istherefore be questionable whether the relatively lowthought to predominantly limit VO2max in relativelyvolume of high-intensity training is sufficient towell trained individuals,[100,101] training at VO2maxprovide the optimal training effect. If the durationwould appear to be the optimal stimulus for VO2maxthreshold could not be attained during training atenhancement. However, this physiological rationaleVO2max, no VO2max enhancement would occur.was based on studies that investigated the physio-Conversely, only short periods may be needed atlogical responses to incremental exercise. SinceVO2max in order to enhance VO2max, since high-training protocols used by distance runners that in-intensity training may be particularly potent in elic-clude velocities that elicit VO2max are typically in-iting physiological adaptation.[111] Further trainingtermittent,[102] the validity of applying this physio-studies and research investigating acute and chroniclogical rationale to intermittent training protocols isadaptive responses to constant and intermittent run-questionable. Furthermore, intermittent training pro-ning protocols ≤100% VO2max are required.tocols that elicit VO2max can vary considerably.[103]

Astrand et al.[104] reported that subjects elicited If high-intensity training is a potent signal inVO2max during intermittent running with 10-second eliciting chronic adaptive responses,[111] supra-intervals. MacDougall and Sale[105] suggested that vVO2max training velocities may be considered ef-the oxidative stress during such short intervals fective for enhancing VO2max. There is no theoreti-would be less than for 2- to 3-minute intervals, since cal basis to support such a premise, since theremuch of the energy requirement of the work interval would be no additional stress on the oxygen trans-is derived from hydrolysis of phosphocreatine and port system compared with maximal exercise,[16]

oxygen bound to myoglobin. Even if eliciting and the greater proportional contribution of anaer-


866 Midgley et al.

obic metabolism would considerably reduce time to programme,[115] the long-term effects of resistancetraining on the body mass and VO2max of distanceexhaustion.[103] Bickham et al.[37] found that VO2maxrunners requires investigation. Furthermore, the fe-did not change when 5- to 15-second sprint intervalsmale distance runners in the study by Johnston et(work : relief ratios between 1 : 5 and 1 : 3) wereal.[41] demonstrated a mean 1.3kg increase in bodyadded to the training programmes of distance run-mass. Although this was statistically insignificant,ners who previously performed only LSD training.the experimental group included only six subjectsSimilar results have been reported for well trainedand therefore may have been a type II error.cyclists, triathletes and duathletes.[92] However,

In summary, some authors have suggested thatFranch et al.[40] reported a significant increase in thetraining at or near VO2max is optimal for enhancingVO2max of runners with a similar initial VO2max andthe VO2max of athletes,[90-95] and that increasing thetraining history to those used in the study byvolume of submaximal training is ineffective.[76]Bickham et al.,[37] in response to the inclusion ofHowever, submaximal,[29,39] maximal[45] andintermittent running incorporating 15-second worksupramaximal[40] training intensities have all beenintervals at 132% vVO2max (work : relief intervalshown to enhance the VO2max of distance runners.ratio 1 : 1). Very high-intensity training may there-Since only two studies[40,43] have compared differentfore enhance the VO2max of distance runners only iftraining intensities, the relative efficacy of a particu-relief intervals between work bouts are short. Franchlar training intensity is unknown. Different forms ofet al.[40] reported that interval training at 106%resistance training have consistently been reportedVO2max resulted in significantly greater increases into be ineffective in enhancing the VO2max of dis-VO2max than interval training at 136% VO2max.tance runners.Although this suggests that very high-intensity

training is not optimal for enhancing VO2max, this4. Enhancing the Lactate Thresholdtype of training may have other important benefits,

such as eliciting improvement in the so-called mus-Although the role of lactate as a cause of fatiguecle power factors.[112]

during physical activity is still a controversial is-There is no physiological rationale to suggest that sue,[116-118] scientists widely agree that an increase in

resistance training would be effective for enhancing the lactate threshold typically results in improvedthe VO2max of distance runners. Burleson Jr et endurance performance.[21,64,119-121] Anecdotal evi-al.[113] reported that the average exercise intensity dence supports the view traditionally held by dis-during a traditional strength training session was tance runners and running coaches that prolonged,only 44% VO2max. Accordingly, studies have con- moderate-intensity running is optimal for enhancingsistently demonstrated that adding traditional the lactate threshold.[105,122] However, a 103% in-strength training or plyometric training to the train- crease in the volume of sub-lactate threshold train-ing programmes of distance runners does not en- ing over 4 weeks did not enhance the lactate thresh-hance VO2max.[31,38,41,42] The increased muscle mass old of well trained distance runners.[25] The shortassociated with traditional strength training[114] study duration may explain the absence of any de-could potentially reduce the relative VO2max of dis- tectable change in the lactate threshold. The obser-tance runners. Body mass did not significantly vation that long-distance runners typically possesschange in any training studies involving the addition higher lactate thresholds than middle-distance run-of resistance training to runners’ normal training ners has been suggested to be indirect evidence thatprogrammes.[27,31,38,41,42] However, these studies high volumes of sub-lactate threshold training arewere only between 6 and 10 weeks in duration. effective in enhancing the lactate threshold.[120] TheSince neural adaptation and not skeletal muscle hy- basis for this premise was that long-distance runnerspertrophy is the predominant source of the increased predominantly perform LSD training, whereas mid-strength in the early stages of a resistance training dle-distance runners tend to rely more on interval



training at or close to VO2max.[120] Natural selection increased the oxygen uptake (VO2) at the lactatemay be an alternative explanation for differences in threshold by 48% in untrained college women, com-the lactate thresholds of middle- and long-distance pared with an insignificant 18% increase in therunners and challenges the hypothesis of MacDou- group that trained at the vLT (≈44% VO2max). In agall.[120] A runner with a genetically determined high study by Weltman et al.,[126] subjects training at thepreponderance of slow-twitch skeletal muscle fibres lactate threshold intensity demonstrated a plateau inwould probably possess a relatively high lactate lactate threshold enhancement after 4 months,threshold,[123] would more likely perform better in whereas subjects training at supra-lactate thresholdlong-distance running events,[3-5] and would there- intensities demonstrated continued improvementfore more likely compete in these events. We could over the next 8 months of the study period. Anotherfind no experimental evidence to support the pre- study reported that supra-lactate threshold trainingmise that prolonged moderate-intensity exercise is was no more effective for enhancing the lactateeffective for enhancing the lactate threshold of dis- threshold than sub-lactate threshold training.[127] Totance runners. our knowledge, only one study that involved trained

runners has reported the enhancement of the lactateSeveral authors have suggested that training canthreshold in response to the inclusion of training atbe effectively prescribed based on the blood lactateor slightly above vLT.[29] Although this study high-response to an incremental exercise test.[124-126]

lights that training at or slightly above the lactateMany training intervention studies have used thisthreshold may enhance the lactate threshold of wellapproach to prescribe training loads (table I). How-trained distance runners, only one experimentalever, Hawley[11] stated that there was no scientificgroup was used. The relative efficacy of training atevidence to support the use of blood lactate re-or slightly above the lactate threshold, for enhancingsponses to exercise tests for training prescription.the lactate threshold of trained distance runners, isUntrained women demonstrated a significant in-therefore unknown.crease in the lactate threshold during 4 months of

training at lactate threshold intensity; however, there Several studies involving runners incorporatedwas no further enhancement during the following 8 higher training velocities, with contrasting re-months of training.[126] This study suggests that sults.[15,34,36,39] Two studies that incorporated inter-training at the vLT would probably be ineffective mittent running at v∆50 (the velocity midway be-for enhancing the lactate threshold of distance run- tween vLT and vVO2max) reported no significantners. The basis for this statement is that distance increase in the lactate threshold.[34,36] Two otherrunners typically have a history of relatively high studies incorporating intermittent runs at the veloci-volumes of this type of training[15] and so the rate of ties at the maximal lactate steady-state (vMLSS) andadaptive responses has probably already reached a onset of blood lactate accumulation (vOBLA) re-plateau.[76] However, the addition of very long runs ported significant increases in lactate threshold.[15,39]

at or below the vLT (over-distance training) to the Since the duration of the studies and the relativetraining programmes of distance runners, who habit- training intensity expressed as a percentage ofually undertake high training mileages, may en- VO2max were similar between studies, these factorshance the lactate threshold; future research could did not appear to explain the contrasting findings.investigate this possibility. The study that reported the largest mean increase in

the lactate threshold of 10.6% involved 20 minutesWells and Pate[22] suggested that training slightlyof running at vOBLA for 6 days per week, in addi-above the vLT is effective for enhancing the lactatetion to the runners’ normal training.[15] This volumethreshold of endurance athletes. However, this as-of additional high-intensity training (≈91% VO2max)sertion appears to be based on the training responsesmay explain the large increase in the lactate thresh-of untrained individuals. Henritze et al.[125] reported

that training slightly above vLT (≈59% VO2max) old in these runners. The subjects in the second


868 Midgley et al.

study that reported a significant increase in the lac- lactate threshold. However, only four of the studiestate threshold had a previous history of performing reviewed involved well trained individuals, and onlyonly LSD training.[39] Runners who favour high one of these studies involved training above OBLAvolumes of moderate-intensity training and do not (≈85% VO2max),[24,39] making this supposition ques-engage in relatively high-intensity training may tionable. If well trained runners do require highdemonstrate a plateau in lactate threshold enhance- relative training intensities to enhance the lactatement.[76] Since the LSD training was performed at an threshold, the physiological basis for this is unclear.average of 12.4 km/h, the addition of 2 days per One explanation is that distance runners typicallyweek of training at the vMLSS (average 13.8 km/h) perform high weekly training loads,[1,45,129] with lit-may have provided an unaccustomed training stimu- tle time allocated to high-intensity training.[73,75,130]

lus resulting in lactate threshold enhancement. Since type II skeletal muscle fibres are not recruitedto any great extent until around 90% VO2max,[131]

Londeree[17] suggested that the lactate thresholdthese fibres may be relatively untrained comparedand fixed blood lactate concentrations respondedwith the frequently recruited type I fibres. Trainingsimilarly to training and should not confound theresponses associated with lactate threshold enhance-interpretation of training studies. This is highlightedment are thought to be related to skeletal musclein figure 3 by a rightward shift of the whole bloodadaptations (table II) that reduce lactate productionlactate curve, and is characteristic of the trainingand increase its disposal at higher running veloci-response of trained distance runners.[15,28,64] By in-ties.[132] The high-intensity training required for lac-ference from reported changes in OBLA, two fur-tate threshold enhancement suggested by Londe-ther studies involving well trained distance runnersree[17] may therefore be related to these trainingdemonstrated statistically significant increases inadaptations in type II skeletal muscle fibres. Mac-the lactate threshold,[24,28] and one study reported aDougall[120] presented this hypothesis almost 30statistically insignificant change.[23] Since theseyears ago and recommended that work intervals ofstudies all involved similarly intense training and2–3 minutes duration at 90–100% VO2max would besimilarly well trained runners, the reason for themost effective for lactate threshold enhancement.contrasting findings cannot be ascertained.Since some well trained runners possess lactate

A meta-analysis by Londeree[17] concluded that thresholds at or close to 90% VO2max,[75,82] traininghighly trained individuals may need to train at much slightly above the lactate threshold would representhigher than lactate threshold intensity to enhance the high-intensity training for these runners. An alterna-

tive explanation is that these physiological adapta-tions are elicited by an elevated lactate concentra-tion associated with high-intensity exercise. Ma-der[133] stated that lactate does not elicit adaptiveresponses that enhance endurance performance, butdid not provide empirical or theoretical support forthis view. Intuitively, lactate would be a prime can-didate molecule for gene induction that resulted inadaptations associated with lactate threshold en-hancement. However, if elevated blood lactate con-centrations are necessary to enhance the lactatethreshold, some distance runners may need to trainat high percentages of VO2max. Weltman et al.[58]

reported that 20 of 31 runners had blood lactateconcentrations <2.5 mmol/L at a running velocityassociated with 90% VO2max, and 10 of the 31

16 Before trainingAfter training

Blo

od la

ctat

e co

ncen

trat

ion

(mm

ol/L

)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

VO2 (L/min)

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5·

Fig. 3. A downward and rightward shift of the mean blood lactatecurve of ten male students in response to 16 weeks of physicaltraining. The error bars represent the standard deviation of themean.[128] VO2 = oxygen uptake.



Table II. Training-induced adaptations that have been associated with the enhancement of the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), lactatethreshold and running economy

Training adaptation Physiological significance

VO2max

Increased left ventricular chamber size and wall thickness[134] Increased maximal stroke volume[135]

Increased erythrocyte mass[136] Increased blood volume, maximal stroke volume and arterial oxygencontent[137]

Increased plasma volume[138] Increased blood volume and maximal stroke volume[137]

Increased skeletal muscle capillarity[139] Increased oxygen diffusion and uptake for any given arterial pO2

and blood flow[140]

Increased skeletal muscle mitochondrial density and oxidative Increased VO2 and widening of the maximal arterial-mixed venousenzyme concentration[24,141] oxygen difference[142]

Increased myoglobin concentration[143] Facilitation of oxygen diffusion from the sarcolemma to themitochondria. Increased VO2 for any given pO2 and blood flow.Increased maximal arterial-mixed venous oxygen difference[144]

Lactate threshold

Decreased PFK-1 concentration and PFK-1 : CS ratio[24] Decreased lactate production[24]

Increased skeletal muscle mitochondrial density and oxidative Increased percentage of pyruvate that enters the Krebs cycle, asenzyme concentration[24,141] opposed to lactate formation through the LDH reaction[24]

Increased β-oxidation enzymes[24] Increased lipid oxidation, decreased demand for carbohydratemetabolism and decreased lactate production[145]

Change in LDH expression that favours the heart isoform[24] Decreased pyruvate-to-lactate conversion rate[24]

Increased MCT expression[146] Increased lactate disposal[146]

Increased muscle strength[147] Reduced recruitment of type II skeletal muscle fibres and reducedblood flow occlusion[147]

Running economy

Change in the expression of fast-twitch skeletal muscle fibres Reduced energy cost for developing a particular level of force[148]a

towards a more slow-twitch phenotype[146]

Decreased minute ventilation for a particular running velocity[40] Reduced respiratory energy demand[40]

Improved mechanical efficiency[149] Reduced whole body energy demand[150]

Increased musculotendonous stiffness[38] Increased storage and return of elastic energy and musclestabilising activity[151]

a Based on research involving mouse skeletal muscle.

CS = citrate synthase; LDH = lactate dehydrogenase; MCT = monocarboxylate transporter; PFK-1 = phosphofructokinase-1; pO2 = partialpressure of oxygen; VO2 = oxygen uptake.

runners at 95% VO2max. Consequently, the same distance runners in response to replacing part oftraining intensity (i.e. 90–100% VO2max) could be their normal training with resistance training, con-optimal for the enhancement of the lactate threshold sisting of single-leg jumps and maximal effortand the VO2max of well trained runners. Empirical tethered treadmill running. The control group, whoresearch is required to investigate this hypothesis. performed only their normal training, demonstrated

a 0.5% increase in vOBLA. The 90% confidenceMarcinik et al.[147] reported a significant 12%limits highlighted that the difference betweenincrease in the lactate threshold of sedentary malesgroups was likely to be a true treatment effect.in response to a 12-week traditional resistance train-Conversely, Paavolainen et al.[31] reported that theing programme. The authors suggested that the im-lactate threshold did not change when 32% of theprovement in lactate threshold may have been relat-runners’ normal run training was replaced withed to increased muscle strength, an associated atten-sport-specific explosive resistance training. The im-uation of blood flow occlusion, and a decrease inprovement in the study by Hamilton et al.[27] maytype II skeletal muscle fibre recruitment. Hamilton

et al.[27] reported a 4% increase in the vOBLA of have been due to the combination of high resistance


870 Midgley et al.

and movement specificity afforded by the tethered cantly correlated (r = 0.62) with running economy inrunning, compared with the plyometric training and relatively well trained distance runners. The critical-sprints performed in the study by Paavolainen et ly important factor in the enhancement of runningal.[31] Alternatively, the apparent lack of improve- economy may therefore be the cumulative distancement in the VO2 at the lactate threshold in the study the runner has covered over the years of training andby Paavolainen et al.[31] may have been an artefact of not training volume per se. This may be due tothe 7.7% improvement in running economy. The continued long-term adaptations in skeletal musclelactate threshold, expressed as VO2 or running ve- (table II), or a slow but progressive long-term im-locity, is dependent on running economy, with improvement in mechanical efficiency.[149] If the cu-proved running economy tending to increase the mulative distance the runner has covered over thevelocity at lactate threshold[152] and decrease the years of training is a determinant of running econo-VO2 at the lactate threshold.[153] Further research is my, a tendency for older runners to have betterclearly required to investigate the efficacy of differ- running economy than younger runners may be ex-ent types and volumes of resistance training for pected. However, running economy has been foundenhancing the lactate threshold of distance runners. to be negatively associated with age in runners aged

In summary, we found only one study that inves- 20–60 years.[155] This has been suggested to be duetigated the effects of an increase in the volume of to a reduced ability to store and use elastic ener-sub-vLT or vLT training on the lactate threshold of gy.[155] Further research is required to investigate thedistance runners.[25] This study reported no signifi- relationship between running economy and cumula-cant increase in the lactate threshold. Several train- tive training distance.ing studies have reported a significant increase in

Studies that have incorporated relatively high-the lactate threshold of distance runners in responseintensity training into the training programmes ofto the inclusion of supra-vLT training veloci-distance runners have reported equivocal results inties,[15,29,39] although these findings have not beenrelation to improving running economy. Intervalconsistent.[34,36] Similar contrasting findings havetraining at 93–106% VO2max[23,34,36,40] and continu-also been reported with studies that added resistanceous running at vOBLA[24] have been shown to im-training to the training programmes of distance run-prove running economy significantly. Other studiesners.[27,31] This limited and contrasting researchusing similar training intensities have reported nohighlights the need for further studies.significant improvement.[15,33] However, some ofthe studies that found contrasting findings actually5. Enhancing Running Economyreported similar improvements in running econo-my,[15,24,33,40] and the contrasting findings were actu-There is a belief that, over time, runners adoptally an artefact of statistical power. These studiestheir most economical running style.[149] According-therefore indicate that high-intensity training im-ly, high training volumes and the number of years ofproves running economy, but they do not allowrunning experience have been suggested to be im-evaluation of its relative efficacy. Additionally,portant for improved running economy.[154] Pate etwhereas VO2max has been shown to increase signifi-al.[155] reported that training volume was not associ-cantly during the transition between the off-seasonated with better running economy, even after con-and pre-competitive period, during which trainingtrolling for potential confounding variables. Howev-intensity is increased,[86-89] the same studies reporteder, no training intervention studies that measuredeither a significant improvement[87,88] or norunning economy have increased the training vol-change[86,89] in running economy. Further research isume of runners while maintaining the same meantherefore required to establish the relative efficacytraining intensity, so the effect of increasing trainingof high-intensity training for improving the runningvolume on running economy is not known. May-economy of long-distance runners. Franch et al.[40]hew[156] found that the years of training was signifi-



compared interval training at 94%, 106% and 132% importance to runners who are reluctant to engage inVO2max and found that running economy signifi- traditional resistance training. Increased resistancecantly improved in the 94% and 106% groups, but to movement may also be attained by hill training,not in the group that trained at 132% VO2max. This bungee running and running in sand. Uphill runningsuggests that very high-intensity running is not ef- and bounding have been used to enhance thefective in improving running economy, possibly due strength of distance runners,[161] whereas Billat[162]

to a loss of running form at very high running suggested that high-velocity running exerts similarvelocities, or an inability to complete a sufficient training effects as resistance training in distancetraining volume to elicit a training effect. runners. These training methods may prove to be

more effective alternative forms of resistance train-Jones and Carter[157] suggested that runners areing due to higher levels of movement specificity.typically most economical at the running velocitiesHowever, no training studies have investigated theseat which they habitually train. Since running econo-alternative forms of training for improving the run-my is only of practical importance at intended racening economy of runners. Further research is clearlypace, this would suggest that training at intendedrequired to investigate the relative efficacy of differ-race pace is optimal for enhancing running econo-ent forms of resistance training for improving run-my. Although intuitively this would seem correct, toning economy.our knowledge no studies have investigated the

specificity of training velocity on running economy. Stretching is recommended to runners to preventIn fact, Morgan et al.[158] suggested that the type of injury and improve performance.[163] Two studiesrun training exerts a negligible effect on improving have reported that flexibility was inversely related torunning economy, based on the observation that running economy in trained distance runners,[151,164]

several studies reported no differences in the run- indicating that runners should perform little or noning economy of distance runners despite the run- stretching, to prevent decrements in running per-ners engaging in different training. formance due to decreased running economy. Fur-

thermore, there is currently no scientific evidence toAlthough the addition of traditional strengthsupport the premise that stretching reduces injurytraining and plyometric training to the trainingrisk in runners.[165] Craib et al.[151] hypothesised thatprogrammes of distance runners has been shown notless flexibility minimised muscle stabilising activityto enhance VO2max,[31,38,41,42] a significant improve-and increased the storage and return of elastic ener-ment in running economy has consistently beengy. However, two studies found no relationship be-reported.[31,38,41,42] The authors suggested thattween flexibility and running economy in run-greater mechanical efficiency resulting from in-ners.[155,166] A 10-week chronic stretching pro-creased muscle strength, improved motor unit re-gramme significantly increased flexibility, butcruitment patterns and increased tendon stiffnessrunning economy remained unchanged.[167] The re-were possible explanations for the improved run-lationship between flexibility and running economyning economy.[31,38,41] Although resistance trainingis therefore currently unclear and further studies aremay appear to be an effective training method torequired.enhance the performance of distance runners, the

long-term effects of different forms of resistance In summary, high training volumes have beentraining have not been investigated. Traditional suggested to be effective for improving runningstrength training may eventually lead to an increased economy,[154] although no studies that increasedbody mass,[159] which may impair performance.[160] training volume while maintaining a constant train-Plyometric training may avoid this potential prob- ing intensity have been conducted to support thislem and has the benefit of being able to be incorpo- view. The inclusion of high-intensity interval train-rated into the warm-up or cool-down of a running ing,[23,34,36,40] continuous running at vOBLA,[24] andworkout.[42] This latter point may be of particular resistance training[31,38,41,42] in the training program-


872 Midgley et al.

mes of distance runners have been shown to im- period could profoundly affect training responsesprove running economy. However, no studies have during the study period. For example, if high-inten-compared the relative efficacy of the different forms sity training bouts were added to runners’ ‘normalof resistance training, and there has been limited training’, runners who have previously performedresearch[40] investigating the relative efficacy of dif- only LSD training[74,75] would probably demonstrateferent training intensities on the running economy of greater training responses than those who have al-distance runners. ready habitually performed high-intensity training.

The same would probably be true for runners stud-6. Can Valid Training Recommendations ied in the off-season compared with the pre-compet-be Given to Runners and Coaches itive phase of training. There is also the possibilityBased on Current Scientific Knowledge? that the training intervention used in some of the

studies in table I did not involve an appreciableThere have been relatively few long-term train- change in training intensity or volume for some of

ing studies involving trained distance runners.[78-81]the runners. This inability to compare the runners’

This lack of long-term training studies has been training before and during the training interventionperceived as a major limitation in characterising period is probably the main factor that hinders theeffective training methods for enhancing the physio- interpretation of previous training intervention stud-logical determinants of long-distance running per- ies. Researchers are therefore encouraged to reportformance.[19] Although we agree with this view, as much detail as practically possible relating to thetraining studies of 4–8 weeks duration, which ac- training history of subjects involved in training stud-count for 19 of the 23 studies in table I, may still be ies. A washout period has been used to minimise theinsightful. Runners often target specific physiologi- influence of the runners’ previous training on thecal performance determinants during training cycles responses to a training intervention.[30] This in-of similar duration.[20,65,70] However, when consider- volved 2 months of 20–30km per week of easying both short- and long-term training studies inrunning. A limitation to this approach is that mostvolving runners, there have still been relatively few. runners will probably be unwilling to undertake aThis may be due to the reluctance of runners to have long period of low-intensity, low-volume training.scientists dictate their training schedules over the Furthermore, a washout period reduces ecologicalstudy period.[21] Consequently, it would be difficult

validity since runners would not normally undertaketo argue against the view that there is insufficient

such low training loads.direct scientific evidence to formulate training rec-

Arguably the second greatest limitation in theommendations based on this limited research. Thisinterpretation of the studies summarised in table I isis particularly evident when considering the manythat only 5 of the 23 studies[13,14,33,40,43] includedmethodological factors associated with these train-more than one experimental group. Consequently,ing studies that make interpretation of the findingsthere is no comparison to allow the evaluation of thedifficult (summarised in table III). Previous studies,relative efficacy of a particular training intervention.for example, mostly did not control the runners’If a training intervention study was conducted in thetraining load, and sometimes the basis of the trainingrunners’ off-season, for example, any increase instudy was to include one or more specific bouts oftraining volume or intensity may enhance the physi-training in addition to the runner’s ‘normal train-ological determinants of performance, regardless ofing’,[13,15,24,29,37] which was typically not describedthe specific characteristics of that intervention. Re-or only briefly described (table IV). The trainingsearchers are therefore encouraged to include atstatus of the runners (e.g. off-season, pre-competi-least two experimental groups with clearly definedtive training phase) during the study period wasdifferences in the training programmes of theseldom reported (table IV). The nature of the train-groups. Presenting at least one clear hypothesis,ing in the weeks, months and years before the study



Table III. Potential limitations to some of the training intervention studies included in table I that make interpretation of the findings difficult

Factor Impact on interpretation of results

Subjects’ prior training not Does not allow evaluation of how the runners’ training programmes have changed due to the trainingdescribed intervention

No control group Does not allow identification of any increase in a dependent variablea not due to the experimentaltreatment (e.g. learning effect during repeated testing)

Only one experimental group Does not allow evaluation of the relative efficacy of an experimental treatment in enhancing aparticular dependent variablea

Small sample size Low statistical power that increases the type II error rate (i.e. an increased chance that the authorsof a training study declare that no change has occurred in the dependent variable,a when in reality achange has occurred). This is particularly relevant to studies that have investigated interactioneffects (time × group) between control and experimental groups

Degree of compliance with Lack of compliance to the training intervention could result in more or less training being completedtraining programme not than expected, or could result in the inclusion of a type or intensity of training that the runner shouldmonitored/reported not have been doing. For example, Smith et al.[33] stated that in their previous training study[32] some

runners performed additional training because they thought the prescribed training volume wasinsufficient

Inappropriate test methodology Decreases the chance of detecting a change in a dependent variablea if it has occurred. Forexample, using an inclined treadmill test for runners who have trained on relatively levelsurfaces[24,28,30]

Inappropriate units of Relative VO2max can change due to training-induced changes in body mass and does not reflect ameasurement change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Changes in absolute VO2max should therefore be reported. A

training-induced increase in fat oxidation would tend to increase submaximal VO2[168] and would tendto mask any improvement in running economy. Applying a correction factor to the VO2 value basedon the change in the respiratory exchange ratio would increase the validity of running economymeasurements

Interaction between dependent The lactate threshold expressed in relation to VO2 or running speed is dependent on runningvariablesa economy.[152] Improved running economy tends to decrease the lactate threshold when expressed as

VO2, and increase it when expressed as a velocity

Subject pre-test preparation not Increases the noise in detecting changes in a dependent variable.a For example, differences incontrolled/reported muscle glycogen concentration from variations in dietary carbohydrate intake may alter the

measurement of the lactate threshold pre- and post-experimental treatment[169]

Subject habituation to test A change in a particular dependent variablea could be due to a learning effect rather than a trueprocedures and equipment not training effect in runners who are not adequately habituatedconducted/reported

a Dependent variables refer to VO2max, lactate threshold and running economy.

VO2 = oxygen uptake; VO2max = maximal oxygen uptake.

based on previous experimental research or some resistance training. However, it is not known whichtheoretical physiological rationale, should also aid type of resistance training is most effective, or howin the interpretation of the findings. resistance training loads and types should be inte-

grated into the different phases of a training plan.[170]Several studies incorporated resistance training

Furthermore, the studies highlighted above were ofinto the training programmes of runners and includ-only 6–10 weeks duration, and any negative long-ed a control group that maintained only their normalterms effects are unknown.run training.[27,31,38,41,42] These studies provide an

insight into the effectiveness of resistance training Much of the current knowledge relating to chron-for enhancing the physiological determinants of ic adaptive responses to training has been derivedlong-distance running performance. Resistance from studies using sedentary individuals. For exam-training has consistently been shown to improve the ple, the belief that training slightly above the lactaterunning economy of trained runners,[31,38,41,42] and threshold is optimal for enhancing the lactate thresh-this would indicate that scientists should recom- old[22] appears to have been based on studies involv-mend that runners routinely undertake some sort of ing sedentary individuals.[125,126] To our knowledge,


874 Midgley et al.

improving running economy;[174] however, no train-ing studies have investigated this premise. Othertraining methods that have not been investigated intraining studies using runners are over-speed train-ing using declined running and bungee ropes, over-distance training, and running in sand. Valid recom-mendations cannot be given to runners or coachesregarding the efficacy of some of these ‘novel’training methods until appropriate research has beenconducted.

Although scientists are unlikely to be able to

Table IV. Number of training intervention studies (out of 23) involv-ing distance runners that reported particular details of the runners’training prior to participation in the study

Aspect of previous training No. ofstudies

Weekly training distance 10

Training intensities 3

Weekly training distance and training intensities 0

Weekly training time 2

Type of training (e.g. interval training, hill work, 1resistance training)

Stage of training (e.g. off-season, pre-competition 5phase)a

a At the time of commencing participation in the study.formulate valid training recommendations basedsolely on ‘direct’ scientific evidence (i.e. training

no studies involving runners have corroborated studies), other sources of scientific knowledge arethese findings. However, although we cannot as- available. The physiological structures and process-sume that trained individuals respond in the same es that limit VO2max, the lactate threshold and run-way as sedentary individuals, little research has so ning economy, and the adaptations associated withfar been conducted that identifies any differences in their enhancement, have been identified (table II).chronic adaptive responses to training between Scientists can use this information, along withtrained and sedentary individuals. The rate of pro- knowledge of the acute physiological responses togression in physiological adaptation may be the only different exercise intensities, to guide training rec-appreciable difference,[171] particularly after previ- ommendations. This approach has been used recent-ously sedentary individuals have undertaken several ly by Midgley et al.[16] to formulate recommenda-weeks of training. Until appropriate research has tions for effective training intensities to enhance thebeen conducted, scientists should be very cautious, VO2max of distance runners. We believe that thewhen extrapolating findings from training studies demarcation of training zones based on the bloodthat used untrained individuals, in their advice to lactate response to incremental exercise, highlightedlong-distance runners and their coaches on effective in figure 4, is also useful for prescribing training fortraining methods. In this context, it may be possible long-distance runners. Some scientists have had vastthat training intervention studies using trained ani- experience working with runners and runningmals may have greater validity than those using coaches, and this will probably also prove valuableuntrained humans. The validity of making infer- in interpreting the body of scientific literature relat-ences from training studies using different athletes, ing to enhancing the physiological determinants ofsuch as cyclists and swimmers, or distance runners long-distance running performance.of different ability (e.g. from recreational club run-

In the future, molecular biology may make anner to elite), is also questionable.

increasing contribution to identifying optimal train-Many training methods have not been investigating methods. At present, little is known about the

ed in relation to enhancing the physiological deter- biochemical, mechanical and electrochemical sig-minants of long-distance running performance. For nals that modify gene expression resulting in adapta-example, the physiological effects of replacing on- tions associated with the enhancement of the physio-land running with deep-water running have been logical determinants of long-distance running per-investigated in distance runners,[172,173] but the use of formance. Relatively recent advances in geneticdeep-water running as supplemental training to on- technology have allowed the identification of genet-land running has not been investigated. Anecdotal ic factors that contribute to particular aspects of

athletic performance.[176,177] Future research mayevidence suggests that hill running is effective for



research suggests that high-intensity running andresistance training may be effective training meth-ods; however, this research is still too limited toguide the formulation of specific recommendationswith a sufficient level of confidence. Although di-rect scientific evidence is limited, we believe thatscientists can still formulate worthwhile trainingrecommendations by integrating the information de-rived from training intervention studies with otherscientific knowledge. This includes the acute physi-ological responses in the various exercise intensitydomains, the structures and processes that limit thephysiological determinants of long-distance runningperformance, and the adaptations associated withtheir enhancement. The scientists’ own experiencein providing sports science support and knowledgeof appropriate anecdotal evidence should also helpformulate worthwhile recommendations that arepredominantly based on the available scientific evi-

9

Blo

od la

ctat

e (m

mol

/L) 8

3

4

5

6

7

2

1

0

Hea

rt r

ate

(bea

ts/m

in)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

11 12 13

E

14

LT

Running velocity (km/h)

15

S

T

16

LTP

17

Blood lactateHeart rate

Fig. 4. Blood lactate and heart rate responses of a competitive clubrunner during an incremental exercise test. Training zones are de-marcated by the running velocities and heart rates associated withthe lactate threshold (LT) and the lactate turnpoint (LTP). Theeasy (E), steady (S) and tempo (T) running training zones areassociated with the moderate, heavy and severe exercise domains,respectively. This is based on the assumption that the runningvelocity and heart rate at the LTP, measured during an incrementalexercise test, is a reasonable approximation of the maximal lactatesteady-state.[175] dence.

Readers should be aware that although this re-identify the genes that contribute to the variation in view has focused on identifying optimal trainingVO2max, the lactate threshold and running economy, methods for enhancing the three major physiologi-as well as the biochemical, mechanical and electro- cal determinants of long-distance running perform-chemical signals that induce these genes.[178] If the ance, enhancing competition performance is the ulti-effects of different exercise intensities and modali- mate goal. Optimal training methods for enhancingties on signal strength can be characterised for each particular determinants of long-distance runningof these genes, this information may prove very performance may not be optimal for enhancing per-effective in identifying optimal training methods for formance, since ‘optimal’ training methods may im-long-distance runners. pact negatively on other determinants of long-dis-

tance running performance. Furthermore, an in-creased risk of overtraining should be an important7. Conclusionsconsideration.

Scientists should be cautious when giving train-Current training methods have developed ing recommendations to runners and coaches based

predominantly from the trial-and-error approach of on the current limited scientific knowledge. Thisrunners and several prominent running coaches, limited knowledge highlights that characterising thewhile the contributions made by scientists have been most effective training methods for long-distancecomparatively small. The present article suggests runners is still a fruitful area for future research.that this can be largely explained by the lack ofavailable scientific knowledge. Upon consideration

Acknowledgementsof the limitations of current research, we believe thatthere is little direct scientific evidence to allowidentification of the most effective training methods No sources of funding were used to assist in the prepara-to enhance the VO2max, lactate threshold and run- tion of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest

that are directly relevant to the content of this review.ning economy of long-distance runners. Previous


876 Midgley et al.

exercise science and sports medicine: volume 1, prolongedReferencesexercise. Indianapolis (IN): Benchmark Press, 1988, 357-911. Billat V, Demarle A, Slawinski J, et al. Physical and training

23. Billat V, Flechet B, Petit B, et al. Interval training at VO2max:characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sportseffects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers. MedExerc 2001; 33: 2089-97Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 156-632. Foster C. VO2max and training indices as determinants of com-

24. Sjodin B, Jacobs I, Svedenhag J. Changes in onset of bloodpetitive running performance. J Sports Sci 1983; 1: 13-22lactate accumulation (OBLA) and muscle enzymes after train-3. Noakes TD, Myburgh KH, Schall R. Peak treadmill runninging at OBLA. Eur J Appl Physiol 1982; 49: 45-57velocity during the VO2max test predicts running performance.

J Sports Sci 1990; 8: 35-45 25. Lehmann M, Dickhuth HH, Gendrisch G, et al. Training-over-training: a prospective, experimental study with experienced4. Farrell PA, Wilmore JH, Coyle EF, et al. Plasma lactate ac-middle- and long-distance runners. Br J Sports Med 1991; 12:cumulation and distance running performance. Med Sci Sports444-52Exerc 1979; 11: 338-44

5. Tanaka K, Matsuura Y. Marathon performance, anaerobic 26. Londeree BR. The use of laboratory test results with longthreshold, and onset of blood lactate accumulation. J Appl distance runners. Sports Med 1986; 3: 201-13Physiol 1984; 57: 640-3 27. Hamilton RJ, Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Effect of high-intensity

6. Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance resistance training on performance of competitive distancerunning performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 2006; 1: 40-9Exerc 1980; 12: 357-60

28. Acevedo EO, Goldfarb AH. Increased training intensity effects7. Morgan DW, Baldini FD, Martin PE, et al. Ten kilometre on plasma lactate, ventilatory threshold, and endurance. Med

performance and predicted velocity at VO2max among well- Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 563-8trained male runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 79-83

29. Tanaka K, Watanabe H, Konishi Y, et al. Longitudinal associa-8. di Prampero PE, Atchou G, Bruckner JC, et al. The energetics oftions between anaerobic threshold and distance running per-endurance running. Eur J Appl Physiol 1986; 55: 259-66formance. Eur J Appl Physiol 1986; 55: 248-529. Rupert JL. The search for genotypes that underlie human per-

30. Daniels JT, Yarbrough RA, Foster C. Changes in VO2max andformance phenotypes. Comp Biochem Physiol A 2003; 136:running performance with training. Eur J Appl Physiol 1978;191-20339: 249-5410. Wolfarth B, Bray MS, Hagberg JM, et al. The human gene map

31. Paavolainen L, Hakkinen K, Hamalainen I, et al. Explosive-for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes: thestrength training improves 5-km running time by improving2004 update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 881-903running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol 1999; 86:11. Hawley JA. State of the art training guidelines for endurance1527-33performance. S Afr J Sports Med 1995; 2: 7-12

32. Smith TP, McNaughton LR, Marshall KJ. Effects of 4-wk12. Unal M, Unal DO. Gene doping in sports. Sports Med 2004; 34:training using Vmax/Tmax on VO2max and performance in357-62athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 892-613. Hoffman RL. Effects of training at the ventilatory threshold on

the ventilatory threshold and performance in trained distance 33. Smith TP, Coombes JS, Geraghty DP. Optimising high-intensityrunners. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13: 118-23 treadmill training using the running speed at maximal O2

14. Priest JW, Hagan RD. The effects of maximum steady state pace uptake and the time for which this can be maintained. Eur Jtraining on running performance. Br J Sports Med 1987; 21: Appl Physiol 2003; 89: 337-4318-21 34. Slawinski J, Demarle A, Koralsztein JP, et al. Effect of supra-

15. Yoshida T, Udo M, Chida M, et al. Specificity of physiological lactate training on the relationship between mechanical strideadaptation to endurance training in distance runners and com- descriptors and aerobic energy cost in trained runners. Archpetitive walkers. Eur J Appl Physiol 1990; 61: 197-201 Physiol Biochem 2001; 109: 110-6

16. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, Wilkinson M. Is there an opti- 35. Mikesell KA, Dudley GA. Influence of intense endurance train-mal training intensity for enhancing the VO2max of distance ing on aerobic power of competitive distance runners. Med Scirunners? Empirical research findings, current opinions, physi- Sports Exerc 1984; 16: 371-5ological rationale and practical recommendations. Sports Med

36. Laffite LP, Mille-Hamard L, Koralstein JP, et al. The effect of2006; 36: 117-32interval training on oxygen pulse and performance in supra-

17. Londeree B. Effect of training on lactate/ventilatory thresholds: threshold runs. Arch Physiol Biochem 2003; 111: 202-10a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 837-43

37. Bickham DC, Bentley DJ, Le Rossignol PF, et al. The effects of18. Pate RR, Branch JD. Training for endurance sport. Med Scishort-term sprint training on MCT expression in moderatelySports Exerc 1992; 24 Suppl.: S340-3endurance-trained runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 96:19. Berg K. Endurance training and performance in runners: re-636-43search limitations and unanswered questions. Sports Med

38. Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML. The effect of plyometric2003; 33: 59-73training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol20. Kurz MJ, Berg K, Latin R, et al. The relationship of training2003; 89: 1-7methods in NCAA division I cross-country runners and

39. Billat V, Sirvent P, Lepretre PM, et al. Training effect on10,000-meter performance. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14:performance, substrate balance and blood lactate concentration196-201at maximal lactate steady state in master endurance runners.21. Hawley JA, Myburgh KH, Noakes TD, et al. Training tech-Pflugers Arch 2004; 447: 875-83niques to improve fatigue resistance and endurance perform-

ance. J Sports Sci 1997; 15: 325-33 40. Franch J, Madsen K, Djurhuus MS, et al. Improved running22. Wells CL, Pate RR. Training for performance of prolonged economy following intensified training correlates with reduced

exercise. In: Lamb DR, Murray R, editors. Perspectives in ventilatory demands. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 1250-6



41. Johnston RE, Quinn TJ, Kertzer R, et al. Strength training in and exercise physiology laboratory manual, vol. 2. London:female distance runners: impact on running economy. J Routledge, 2001: 235-62Strength Cond Res 1997; 11: 224-9 63. Wells JG, Balke B, van Fossan DD. Lactic acid accumulation

during work: a suggested standardization of work classifica-42. Turner AM, Owings M, Schwane JA. Improvement in runningtion. J Appl Physiol 1957; 10: 51-5economy after 6 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond

Res 2003; 17: 60-7 64. Jones AM. The physiology of the world record holder for thewomen’s marathon. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1: 101-1643. Olsen R, Berg K, Latin R, et al. Comparison of two intense

interval training programs on maximal oxygen uptake and 65. Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, et al. How dorunning performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1988; 28: endurance runners actually train? Relationships with competi-158-64 tion performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 496-504

66. Faria EW, Parker DL, Faria IE. The science of cycling: physiol-44. Viru A. The mechanism of training effects: an hypothesis. Int Jogy and training – part 1. Sports Med 2005; 35: 285-312Sports Med 1984; 5: 219-27

67. Fry RW, Morton AR, Keast D. Periodisation of training stress: a45. Billat V, Demarle A, Paiva M, et al. Effect of training on thereview. Can J Sport Sci 1992; 17: 234-40physiological factors of performance in elite marathon runners

68. Viru A, Viru M. Biochemical monitoring of sport training.(males and runners). Int J Sports Med 2002; 23: 335-41Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 200146. Pollock ML. The quantification of endurance training programs.

69. Verhoshansky Y. Main features of a modern scientific sportsExerc Sport Sci Rev 1973; 1: 155-88training theory. New Stud Athlet 1998; 13: 9-2047. Casaburi R, Storer TW, Sullivan CS, et al. Evaluation of blood

70. Hewson DJ, Hopkins WG. Prescribed and self-reported season-lactate elevation as an intensity criterion for exercise testing.al training of distance runners. J Sports Sci 1995; 13: 463-70Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 852-62

71. Verhoshansky Y. The end of ‘periodization’ in the training of48. Saltin B, Essen B, Pederson PK. Intermittent exercise: its physi-high-performance sport. Mod Athl Coach 1999; 37 (2): 14-8ology and some practical applications. In: Jokl E, editor.

72. Karikosk O. Training volume in distance running. Mod AthlAdvances in exercise physiology. Basel: Karger, 1976: 23-51Coach 1984; 22 (2): 18-2049. Smirnov M. Do we need a methodological reform? Mod Athl

73. Basset FA, Chouinard R, Boulay MR. Training profile countsCoach 1998; 36 (2): 33-6for time-to-exhaustion performance. Can J Appl Physiol 2003;50. Smith DJ. A framework for understanding the training process28: 654-66leading to elite performance. Sports Med 2003; 33: 1103-26

74. Fohrenbach R, Mader A, Hollman W. Determination of endur-51. Hagan RD, Smith MG, Gettman LR. Marathon performance inance capacity and prediction of exercise intensities for trainingrelation to maximal aerobic power and training indices. Medand competition in marathon runners. Int J Sports Med 1987;Sci Sports Exerc 1981; 13: 185-98: 11-8

52. Billat V, Lepretre PM, Heugas AM, et al. Training and75. Robinson DM, Robinson SM, Hume PA, et al. Training intensi-bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female Kenyan

ty of elite male distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991;runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 297-30423: 1078-82

53. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, et al. A new approach to76. Laursen PB, Jenkins DJ. The scientific basis of high-intensity

monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15:interval training: optimising training programmes and max-

109-15imising performance in highly trained athletes. Sports Med

54. Seiler KS, Kjerland GØ. Quantifying training intensity distribu- 2002; 32: 53-73tion in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an ‘opti- 77. Arrese AL, Ostariz ES, Mallen JAC, et al. The changes inmal’ distribution. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006; 16: 49-56 running performance and maximal oxygen uptake after long-

55. Neumann G, Gohlitz D. Training control in running with event- term training in elite athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2005;specific endurance tests [in German]. Leistungssport 1996 (1); 45: 435-4026: 63-7 78. Berg K, Latin RW, Hendricks T. Physiological and physical

56. Karboviak RJ. Using GPS technology to monitor intensity, performance changes in female runners during one year ofspeed, and training volume in outdoor athletes. Strength Cond training. Sports Med Training Rehab 1995; 5: 311-9J 2005; 27: 24-5 79. Daniels J. Running with Jim Ryan: a five year case study. Phys

57. Schutz Y, Herren R. Assessment of speed of human locomotion Sports Med 1974; 2: 63-7using a differential satellite global positioning system. Med Sci 80. Jones AM. A five year physiological case study of an OlympicSports Exerc 2000; 32: 642-6 runner. Br J Sports Med 1998; 32: 39-43

58. Weltman A, Snead D, Seip R, et al. Percentages of maximal 81. Martin EE, Vroon DH, May DF, et al. Physiological changes inheart rate, heart rate reserve and VO2max for determining elite male distance runners training. Phys Sports Med 1986;endurance training intensity in male runners. Int J Sport Med 14: 152-711990; 11: 218-22 82. Sjodin B, Svedenhag J. Applied physiology of marathon run-

59. Calvert TW, Banister EW, Savage MV, et al. A systems model ning. Sports Med 1985; 2: 83-99of the effects of training on physical performance. IEEE Trans 83. Fox EL, Bartels RL, Billings CE, et al. Intensity and distance ofSyst Man Cybernet 1976; 6: 94-102 interval training and changes in aerobic power. Med Sci Sports

60. Morton RH. Fitz-Clarke, JR, Banister EW. Modeling human 1973; 5: 18-22performance in running. J Appl Physiol 1990; 69: 1171-7 84. Shephard RJ. Intensity, duration and frequency of exercise as

61. Garcin M, Fleury A, Ansart L, et al. Training content and determinants of the response to a training regime. Int Z Angewpotential impact on performance: a comparison of young male Physiol 1968; 26: 272-8and female endurance-trained runners. Res Q 2006; 77: 351-61 85. Wenger HA, Bell GJ. The interactions of intensity, frequency

62. Jones AM, Doust JH. Limitations to submaximal exercise per- and duration of exercise training in altering cardiorespiratoryformance. In: Eston R, Reilly T, editors. Kinanthropometry fitness. Sports Med 1986; 3: 346-56


878 Midgley et al.

86. Brisswalter J, Legros P. Variability in energy cost of running 107. Demarie S, Koralsztein JP, Billat V. Time limit and time atduring one training season in high level runners. J Sports Med VO2max, during a continuous and an intermittent run. J SportsPhys Fitness 1994; 34: 135-40 Med Phys Fitness 2000; 40: 96-102

87. Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS, Burkett LN, et al. Following Steve 108. Billat VL, Slawinski J, Bocquet V, et al. Very short (15s–15s)Scott: physiological changes accompanying training. Phys interval-training around the critical velocity allows middle-Sports Med 1984; 12: 103-6 aged runners to maintain VO2max for 14 minutes. Int J Sports

Med 2001; 22: 201-888. Svedenhag J, Sjodin B. Physiological characteristics of elitemale runners in and off-season. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1985; 10: 109. Billat V, Slawinski J, Bocquet V, et al. Intermittent runs at the127-33 velocity associated with maximal oxygen uptake enables sub-

jects to remain at maximal oxygen uptake for a longer time89. Wilcox AR, Bulbulian R. Changes in running economy tothan intense but submaximal runs. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000;VO2max during a cross-country season. J Sports Med Phys81: 188-96Fitness 1984; 24: 321-6

110. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, Carroll S. Physiological deter-90. Daniels J, Scardina N. Interval training and performance. Sportsminants of time to exhaustion during intermittent treadmillMed 1984; 1: 327-34running at vVO2max. Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 273-8091. Hill DW, Rowell AL. Responses to exercise at the velocity

associated with VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 111. Coyle EF. Very intense exercise-training is extremely potent113-6 and time efficient: a reminder. J Appl Physiol 2005; 98: 1983-4

92. Laursen PB, Shing CM, Peake JM, et al. Interval training 112. Paavolainen L, Nummela A, Rusko H. Muscle power factorsprogram optimisation in highly trained endurance cyclists. and VO2max as determinants of horizontal and uphill runningMed Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1801-7 performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10: 286-91

93. Tabata I, Irisawa K, Kouzaki M, et al. Metabolic profile of high 113. Burleson Jr MA, O’Bryant HS, Stone MH, et al. Effect ofintensity intermittent exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; weight training exercise and treadmill exercise on post-exer-29: 390-5 cise oxygen consumption. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30:

518-2294. Vuorimaa T, Karvonen J. Recovery time in interval training forincreasing aerobic capacity. Ann Sports Med 1988; 3: 215-9 114. MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Moroz JR, et al. Mitochondrial

95. Wenger HA, McNab RBJ. Endurance training: the effects of volume density in human skeletal muscle following heavyintensity, total work, duration and initial fitness. J Sports Med resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1979; 11: 164-6Phys Fitness 1975; 15: 199-211 115. Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in

96. Gledhill N, Cox D, Jamnik R. Endurance athletes’ stroke vol- the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 1979;ume does not plateau: major advantage is diastolic function. 58: 115-30Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 1116-21 116. Bangsbo J, Juel C. Lactic acid accumulation is a disadvantage

97. Zhou B, Conlee RK, Jensen R, et al. Stroke volume does not during muscle activity. J Appl Physiol 2006; 100: 1412-3plateau during graded exercise in elite male distance runners. 117. Cairns SP. Lactic acid and exercise performance: culprit orMed Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 1849-54 friend? Sports Med 2006; 36: 279-91

98. Clausen JP. Effect of physical training on cardiovascular adjust- 118. Lamb GD, Stephenson DG. Lactic acid accumulation is anments to exercise in man. Physiol Rev 1977; 57: 779-815 advantage during muscle activity. J Appl Physiol 2006; 100:

99. Cooper G. Basic determinants of myocardial hypertrophy: a 1410-2review of molecular mechanisms. Annu Rev Med 1997; 48: 119. Billat VL. Use of blood lactate measurements for prediction of13-23 exercise performance and for control of training recommenda-

100. Ouellet Y, Poh SC, Becklake MR. Circulatory factors limiting tions for long-distance running. Sports Med 1996; 22: 157-75maximal aerobic exercise capacity. J Appl Physiol 1969; 27:

120. MacDougall JD. The anaerobic threshold: its significance for874-80

the endurance athlete. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1977; 2: 137-40101. Saltin B, Rowell LB. Functional adaptations to physical activity

121. Tanaka K. Lactate-related factors as a critical determinant ofand inactivity. Fed Proc 1980; 39: 1506-13endurance. Ann Physiol Anthrop 1990; 9: 191-202

102. Billat VL. Interval training for performance: a scientific and122. Anderson O. Lactate lift-off. Lansing (MI): SSS Publishing Inc.,empirical practice – special recommendations for middle- and

1998long-distance running. Part I: aerobic interval training. Sports123. Ivy JL, Withers RT, Van Handel PJ, et al. Muscle respiratoryMed 2001; 3: 13-31

capacity and fibre type as determinants of the lactate threshold.103. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR. Time at or near VO2max duringJ Appl Physiol 1980; 48: 523-7continuous and intermittent running: a review with special

124. Coen B, Schwarz L, Urhausen A, et al. Control of training inreference to considerations for the optimisation of trainingmiddle- and long-distance running by means of the individualprotocols to elicit the longest time at or near VO2max. J Sportsanaerobic threshold. Int J Sports Med 1991; 12: 519-24Med Phys Fitness 2006; 46: 1-14

125. Henritze J, Weltman A, Schurrer RL, et al. Effects of training at104. Astrand I, Astrand PO, Christensen EH, et al. Intermittentand above the lactate threshold on the lactate threshold andmuscular work. Acta Physiol Scand 1960; 48: 448-53maximal oxygen uptake. Eur J Appl Physiol 1985; 54: 84-8105. MacDougall D, Sale D. Continuous vs interval training: a re-

126. Weltman A, Seip RL, Snead D, et al. Exercise training at andview for the athlete and the coach. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1981;above the lactate threshold in previously untrained women. Int6: 93-7J Sports Med 1992; 13: 257-63106. Moffatt RJ, Stamford BA, Weltman A, et al. Effects of high-

intensity aerobic training on maximal oxygen uptake capacity 127. Belman MJ, Gaesser GA. Exercise training below and above theand field test performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1977; lactate threshold in the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23:17: 351-9 562-8



128. Ekblom B, Astrand PO, Saltin B, et al. Effect of training on 148. Crow MT, Kushmerick MJ. Chemical energetics of slow-andcirculatory response to exercise. J Appl Physiol 1968; 24: fast-twitch muscles of the mouse. J Gen Physiol 1982; 79:518-28 147-66

149. Nelson RC, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of distance running: a129. Boileau RA, Mayhew JL, Riner WF, et al. Physiological charac-longitudinal study. Res Q 1976; 47: 417-28teristics of elite middle and long distance runners. Can J Appl

Sport Sci 1982; 7: 167-72 150. Williams KR, Cavanagh PR. Relationship between distancerunning mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Ap-130. Sjodin B, Jacobs I. Onset of blood lactate accumulation andpl Physiol 1987; 63: 1236-45marathon running performance. Int J Sports Med 1981; 2: 23-6

151. Craib MW, Mitchell VA, Fields KB, et al. The association131. Gollnick PD, Piehl K, Saltin B. Selective glycogen depletionbetween flexibility and running economy in sub-elite distancepattern in human muscle fibres after exercise of varying inten-runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28: 737-43sity and at varying pedalling rates. J Physiol 1974; 241: 45-57

152. Bosquet L, Leger L, Legros P. Methods to determine aerobic132. Anderson GS, Rhodes EC. A review of blood lactate andendurance. Sports Med 2002; 32: 675-700ventilatory methods of detecting transition thresholds. Sports

153. Caird SJ, McKenzie AD, Sleivert GG. Biofeedback and relaxa-Med 1989; 8: 43-55tion techniques improve running economy in sub-elite long133. Mader A. Evaluation of the endurance performance of marathondistance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 717-22runners and theoretical analysis of test results. J Sports Med

154. Morgan DW, Bransford DR, Costill DL, et al. Variation in thePhys Fitness 1991; 31: 1-19aerobic demand of running among trained and untrained sub-

134. Rerych SK, Scholz PM, Sabiston DC, et al. Effects of exercisejects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 404-9

training on left ventricular function in normal subjects: a155. Pate RR, Macera CA, Bailey SP, et al. Physiological, anthropo-longitudinal study by radionuclide angiography. Am J Cardiol

metric, and training correlates of running economy. Med Sci1980; 45: 244-52Sports Exerc 1992; 24: 1128-33

135. Blomqvist CG, Saltin B. Cardiovascular adaptations to physical156. Mayhew JL. Oxygen cost and energy expenditure of running intraining. Annu Rev Physiol 1983; 45: 169-89

trained runners. Br J Sports Med 1977; 11: 116-21136. Saltin B, Blomqvist G, Mitchell JH, et al. Response to exercise 157. Jones AM, Carter H. The effect of endurance training on

after bed rest and after training: a longitudinal study of adap- parameters of aerobic fitness. Sports Med 2000; 29: 373-86tive changes in oxygen transport and body composition. Circu-

158. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS. Factors affectinglation 1968; 38 Suppl. 7: 1-78running economy. Sports Med 1989; 7: 310-30

137. Hagberg JM, Goldberg AP, Lakatta L, et al. Expanded blood159. Abe T, Kojima K, Kearns CF, et al. Whole body musclevolumes contribute to the increased cardiovascular perform-

hypertrophy from resistance training: distribution and totalance of endurance-trained older men. J Appl Physiol 1998; 85:mass. Br J Sports Med 2003; 37: 543-5484-9

160. Costill DL. The relationship between selected physiological138. Warburton DER, Haykowsky MJ, Quinney HA, et al. Blood variables and distance running performance. J Sports Med

volume expansion and cardiorespiratory function: effects of Phys Fitness 1967; 7: 61-6training modality. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 991-1000

161. Krause V. Marathon preparations. Mod Athl Coach 1989; 27139. Ingjer F. Effects of endurance training on muscle fibre ATP-ase (2): 17-20

activity, capillary supply and mitochondrial content in man. J 162. Billat VL. Current perspectives on performance improvement inPhysiol 1979; 294: 419-32 the marathon: from universalisation to training optimisation.

140. Brodal P, Ingjer F, Hermansen L. Capillary supply of skeletal New Stud Athl 2005; 3: 21-39muscle fibres in untrained and endurance-trained men. Am J 163. Croker N. The body balance of female distance runners. In:Physiol 1977; 232: H705-12 Jarver J, editor. Long distances: contemporary theory, tech-

141. Hoppeler H, Howald H, Conley K, et al. Endurance training in nique and training. Mountain View (CA): Tafnews Press,humans: aerobic capacity and structure of skeletal muscle. J 1995: 119-21Appl Physiol 1985; 59: 320-7 164. Jones AM. Running economy is negatively related to sit-and-

142. Hoppeler H, Fluck M. Plasticity of skeletal muscle mitochon- reach test performance in international-standard runners. Int Jdria: structure and function. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: Sports Med 2002; 23: 40-395-104 165. Andersen JC. Stretching before and after exercise: effect on

143. Harms SJ, Hickson RC. Skeletal muscle mitochondria and my- muscle soreness and injury risk. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 218-20oglobin, endurance, and intensity of training. J Appl Physiol 166. Beaudoin CM, Blum JW. Flexibility and running economy in1983; 54: 798-802 female collegiate track athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness

2005; 45: 295-300144. Wittenberg JB, Wittenberg BA. Myoglobin function reassessed.J Exp Biol 2003; 206: 2011-20 167. Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Eldredge C, et al. Chronic stretching

and running economy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2001; 11: 260-5145. Holloszy JO, Coyle EF. Adaptations of skeletal muscle toendurance exercise and their metabolic consequences. J Appl 168. Bailey SP, Pate RR. Feasibility of improving running economy.Physiol 1984; 56: 831-8 Sports Med 1991; 12: 228-36

169. Podolin DA, Munger PA, Mazzeo RS. Plasma cate-146. Dubouchaud H, Butterfield GE, Wolfel EE, et al. Endurancecholamine and lactate response during graded exercise withtraining, expression, and physiology of LDH, MCT1, andvaried glycogen conditions. J Appl Physiol 1991; 71: 1427-33MCT4 in human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol 2000; 278:

E571-9 170. Suslov F. How much strength is needed in enduranceevents? Mod Athl Coach 1997; 35 (4): 9-12147. Marcinik EJ, Potts J, Schlabach G, et al. Effects of strength

training on lactate threshold and endurance performance. Med 171. Carpinelli RN, Otto RM, Winett RA. A critical analysis ofSci Sports Exerc 1991; 23: 739-43 the ACSM position stand on resistance training: insufficient


880 Midgley et al.

evidence to support recommended training protocols. J Exerc 177. MacArthur DG, North KN. Genes and human elite performance.Physiol 2004; 7: 1-60 Hum Genet 2005; 116: 331-9

172. Bushman BA, Flynn MG, Andres FF, et al. Effect of deep water 178. Allen DL, Harrison BC, Leinwand LA. Molecular and geneticrun training on running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc approaches to studying exercise performance and adaptation.1997; 29: 694-9 Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2002; 30: 99-105

173. Wilber RL, Moffatt RJ, Scott BE, et al. Influence of water-runtraining on the maintenance of aerobic performance. Med Sci

Correspondence: Dr Adrian W. Midgley, Department ofSports Exerc 1996; 28: 1056-62Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull,174. Lydiard A. Training for running races. N Z Vet J 1979; 23: 260-

1 Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, England.175. Smith GC, Jones AM. The relationship between critical veloc- E-mail: [email protected]

ity, maximal lactate steady-state velocity and lactate turnpointvelocity in runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001; 85: 19-26

176. Coffey VG, Hawley JA. Training for performance: insightsfrom molecular biology. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 2006; 1:284-92


training to enhance the physiological determinants of … ps mest 2015/de/sg-midgley... · training...

Documents