Key result
A training program emphasizing low-intensity training improved 10.4-km cross-country race performance significantly more than a moderately high-intensity program (-157 vs -121.5 seconds; p=0.03).
Why the study?
Does a training program emphasizing low-intensity training improve running performance more than one emphasizing moderate-intensity training in subelite endurance runners?
RCT (n=12)
Randomly assigned
Does a training program emphasizing low-intensity training improve running performance more than one emphasizing moderate-intensity training in subelite endurance runners?
Absolute Event Rate: -157% vs -121.5%
p-value: p=0.03
A training program with a higher proportion of low-intensity training (80%) yields greater improvements in running performance than one with more moderate-intensity training, provided high-intensity training is maintained.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Endurance runners should emphasize low-intensity training; extends evidence for polarized programs in subelite performance.
Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Subelite endurance runners (n=12). Training program emphasizing low-intensity (subthreshold) training (Z1) vs. Training program emphasizing moderately high-intensity (between thresholds) training (Z2) was evaluated on Improvement in running performance (simulated 10.4-km cross-country race time) (p=0.03). A training program emphasizing low-intensity training improved 10.4-km cross-country race performance significantly more than a moderately high-intensity program (-157 vs -121.5 seconds; p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: