Longer Disciplined Tapers Improve Marathon Performance for Recreational Runners

Quantitative Analysis of 92 12-Week Sub-elite Marathon Training Plans

BACKGROUND

A typical training plan is a mix of many training sessions with different intensities and durations to achieve a specific goal, like running a marathon in a certain time. Scientific publications provide little specific information to aid in writing a comprehensive training plan. This review aims to systematically and quantitatively analyse the last 12 weeks before a marathon as recommended in 92 sub-elite training plans.

METHODS

We retrieved 92 marathon training plans and linked their running training sessions to five intensity zones. Subsequently, each training plan was grouped based on the total running volume in peak week into high (> 90 km/week), middle (65-90 km/week), and low (< 65 km/week) training volume plan categories.

RESULTS

In the final 12 weeks before a race, recommended weekly running volume averaged 108 km, 59 km, and 43 km for high, middle, and low distance marathon training plans. The intensity distribution of these plans followed a pyramidal training structure with 15-67-10-5-3%, 14-63-18-2-3%, and 12-67-17-2-2% in zones 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, for high, middle, and low volume training plans, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By quantitatively analysing 92 recommended marathon training plans, we can specify typical recommendations for the last 12 weeks before a marathon race. Whilst this approach has obvious limitations such as no evidence for the effectiveness of the training plans investigated, it is arguably a useful strategy to narrow the gap between science and practice.

Training Behaviors and Periodization Outline of Omnivorous, Vegetarian, and Vegan Recreational Runners (Part A)-Results from the NURMI Study (Step 2)

Runners train for long-distance competitions based on underlying motivations, which may be similar to individual dietary motivations (e.g., well-being and performance). Fundamental training differences may arise in recreational runners following different diet types (omnivore, vegetarian, vegan) considering possible motive variations. Following a cross-sectional design, distance runners completed a survey (online), including a thorough assessment of training behaviors with generic training details and periodization specifics in three phases: 1. an intermediary and rebound stage, 2. a main preparatory stage, and 3. a main event stage (tapering or interim event level/s). Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests were used in the statistical analysis. A total of 245 fit recreational runners following omnivore (n = 109), vegetarian (n = 45), and vegan diets (n = 91) were included. Significant differences in the initial running motivation were found across dietary subgroups (p = 0.033) as well as for current motivations (p = 0.038), with vegetarians being the least health motivated (27% and 9%, respectively). No differences in each of the specific periods were found between diet types across the outline (p > 0.05). The present evidence shows that there is a lack of fundamental training differences based on recreational runners following different generic types of diets. The results of the present investigation may be especially relevant for future studies on safety, sustainability, and performance-enhancing dietary practices among athletes.

Estimating the cost of training disruptions on marathon performance

Completing a marathon usually requires at least 12-16 weeks of consistent training, but busy lifestyles, illness or injury, and motivational issues can all conspire to disrupt training. This study aims to investigate the frequency and performance cost of training disruptions, especially among recreational runners. Using more than 15 million activities, from 300,000 recreational runners who completed marathons during 2014-2017, we identified periods of varying durations up to 16 weeks before the marathon where runners experienced a complete cessation of training (so-called training disruptions). We identified runners who had completed multiple marathons including: (i) at least one disrupted marathon with a long training disruption of ≥ 7 days; and (ii) at least one undisrupted marathon with no training disruptions. Next, we calculated the performance cost of long training disruptions as the percentage difference between these disrupted and undisrupted marathon times, comparing the frequency and cost of training disruptions according to the sex, age, and ability of runner, and whether the disruptions occurred early or late in training. Over 50% of runners experienced short training disruptions up to and including 6 days, but longer disruptions were found to be increasingly less frequent among those who made it to race-day. Runners who experience longer training disruptions ( ≥ 7 days) suffer a finish-time cost of 5-8% compared to when the same runners experienced only short training disruptions (<7 days). While we found little difference (<5%) in the likelihood of disruptions-when comparing runners based on sex, age, ability, and the timing of a disruption-we did find significant differences in the the cost of disruptions (10-15%) among these groups. Two sample t -tests indicate that long training disruptions lead to a greater finish-time cost for males (5%) than females (3.5%). Faster runners also experience a greater finish-time cost (5.4%) than slower runners (2.6%). And, when disruptions occur late in training (close to race-day), they are associated with a greater finish-time cost (5.2%) than similar disruptions occurring earlier in training (4.4%). By parameterising and quantifying the cost of training disruptions, this work can help runners and coaches to better understand the relationship between training consistency and marathon performance. This has the potential to help them to better evaluate disruption risk during training and to plan for race-day more appropriately when disruptions do occur.

Influence of advanced shoe technology on the top 100 annual performances in men's marathon from 2015 to 2019

The NIKE Vaporfly shoe was introduced in May 2017 as part of the original #Breaking2 Project (an event aimed to run the first marathon under 2 h). This new advanced shoe technology (NAST) changed the footwear design conception. The aim of this study was (i) to analyse the effect of NAST in men's marathon performance, (ii) to analyse whether the changes in the environmental constraints (temperature and wind) and orography of the marathons, age and birthplace of the runners has changed from 2015 to 2019 and (iii) to analyse the impact of NAST on the historical 50 best performances. Data from top-100 men's marathon performances were collected in that timeframe. The shoes used by the athletes were identified (in 91.8% of the cases) by publicly available photographs. External and environmental conditions of each marathon and age and birthplace of the runners were also analysed. Marathon performances improved from 2017 onwards between 0.75 and 1.50% compared to 2015 and 2016 (p < 0.05). In addition, the improvement was greater in the upper deciles than in the lower ones (p < 0.001). Runners wearing NAST ran ~ 1% faster in marathon compared to runners that did not use it (p < 0.001). When conducting an individual analysis of athletes who ran with and without NAST, 72.5% of the athletes who completed a marathon wearing NAST improved their performance by 0.68% (p < 0.01). External and environmental conditions, age or birthplace of runners seems not to have influenced this performance improvement. NAST has had a clear impact on marathon performance unchanged in the environmental constraints (temperature and wind), orography, age, and birthplace of the runners but with differences between venues.