Individualized Endurance Training Based on Recovery and Training Status in Recreational Runners

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. Determination logic of the training load in the IND group. Training load was adjusted twice a week on evaluation days (Monday and Thursday). If the training load was maintained, no modifications were made compared with the current level. The training load was increased via adding volume (VOL) by 5% (e.g., 1.10 × baseline level to 1.15 × baseline level) or via increasing the number of HIT sessions (INT). The training load was decreased via reducing volume by 25% compared with the current level (VOL), or via reducing volume by 25% from the current level and excluding HIT sessions (INT). After the recovery block, the training continued from the level preceding the recovery block (two-thirds of the markers within normal range) or the next level (VOL). During INT, the progression always started from one HIT. After reaching a maximum number of HIT sessions within a block (two or three sessions), no additional sessions were performed. After the last evaluation day of INT, a maximum of one HIT session was performed to ensure sufficient recovery before final tests.

• 

  FIGURE 2. Training volume, running distance, and training intensity distribution (time in HRzone1, HRzone2, and HRzone3) at baseline (PREP) and across the volume (VOL1–VOL6) and interval (INT1–INT6) training periods in the PD (A) and IND (B) training groups.

• 

  FIGURE 3. Running time in the 10-km test before the VOL (T1), between the VOL and INT (T2), and after the INT (T3) periods in the PD and IND training groups. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 within groups compared with T1 +++P < 0.001 within groups compared with T2.

• 

  FIGURE 4. Magnitude of individual responses and mean changes (black rectangle) in maximal treadmill speed (A) and 10-km running time (B). Magnitudes were set based on the CV of the parameter between T0 and T1. High + and Moderate + indicate improved performance; Trivial ±, unchanged performance; and Moderate −, impaired performance.

• 

  FIGURE 5. Mean ± SD baseline values (PREP) and weekly changes (VOL1–6, INT1–6) in nocturnal HR (A), nocturnal LnRMSSD (B), staleness score (C), and HR–RS index (D). Gray area represents the SWC of the parameter based on individual average values during PREP. In A and B = 0.5 × CV, in C and D = 0.5 × SD. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 within groups compared with PREP. #P < 0.05 between groups at respective time point.