SPORTSCIENCE · sportsci.

org
Perspectives / Training & Performance
Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role
of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
Stephen Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2
Sportscience 13, 32-53, 2009 (sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm)
1 University of Agder, Faculty of Health and Sport, Kristiansand 4604, Norway. Email.
2 Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee National Training Center, Oslo, Norway. Email.
Reviewers: Iñigo Mujika, Araba Sport Clinic, Vitoria, Spain; Stephen Ingham, English Institute of Sport,
Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK.

Endurance training involves manipulation of intensity, duration,

and frequency of training sessions. The relative impact of short,
high-intensity training versus longer, slower distance training has
been studied and debated for decades among athletes, coaches,
and scientists. Currently, the popularity pendulum has swung
towards high-intensity interval training. Many fitness experts, as
well as some scientists, now argue that brief, high-intensity
interval work is the only form of training necessary for
performance optimization. Research on the impact of interval and
continuous training with untrained to moderately trained subjects
does not support the current interval craze, but the evidence does
suggest that short intense training bouts and longer continuous
exercise sessions should both be a part of effective endurance
training. Elite endurance athletes perform 80 % or more of their
training at intensities clearly below their lactate threshold and use
high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly. Studies involving
intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have
shown equivocal results at best. The available evidence suggests
that combining large volumes of low-intensity training with careful
use of high-intensity interval training throughout the annual
training cycle is the best-practice model for development of
endurance performance. KEYWORDS: lactate threshold, maximal
oxygen uptake, VO2max, periodization.
Reprint pdf · Reprint doc · Reviewer's Commentary

Interval Training: a Long History

Exercise Intensity Zones
Training Plans and Cellular Signaling
Training Intensities of Elite Endurance Athletes
Units for Training Intensity
The 80:20 Rule for Intensity
Training Volume of Elite Athletes
Intensified-Training Studies
Intensity for Recreational Athletes
Case Studies of Training Manipulation
Case 1–From Soccer Pro to Elite Cyclist
Case 2–From Modern Pentathlete to Runner
Valid Comparisons of Training Interventions
Conclusions
References
 The evening before the start of the 2009 European College of Sport Science
Congress in Oslo, the two of us were sitting at a doctoral dissertation defense
dinner that is part of the time honored tradition of the “doctoral disputas” in
Scandinavia. One of us was the relieved disputant (Tønnessen) who had
successfully defended his dissertation. The other had played the adversarial role of
“førsteopponent.” Tønnessen’s research on the talent development process
included extensive empirical analyses of the training characteristics of selected
world champion female endurance athletes. His career case-study series
systematized training diary logs of over 15,000 training sessions from three World
and/or Olympic champions in three sports: distance running, cross-country skiing,
and orienteering. Common for all three champions was that over their long,
successful careers, about 85 % of their training sessions were performed as
continuous efforts at low to moderate intensity (blood lactate £2 mM). Among the
40 guests sat coaches, scientists, and former athletes who had been directly or
indirectly involved in winning more endurance sport Olympic gold medals and
world championships than we could count. One guest, Dag Kaas, had coached 12
individual world champions in four different sports. In his toast to the candidate he
remarked, ”My experience as a coach tells me that to become world champion in
endurance disciplines, you have to train SMART, AND you have to train a LOT.
One without the other is insufficient.”
So what is smart endurance training? The question is timely: research and
popular interest in interval training for fitness, rehabilitation, and performance has
skyrocketed in recent years on the back of new research studies and even more
marketing by various players in the health and fitness industry. Some recent
investigations on untrained or moderately trained subjects have suggested that 2-8
wk of 2-3 times weekly intense interval training can induce rapid and substantial
metabolic and cardiovascular performance improvements (Daussin et al., 2007;
Helgerud et al., 2007; Talanian et al., 2007). Some popular media articles have
interpreted these findings to mean that long, steady distance sessions are a waste
of time. Whether well founded or not, this interpretation raises reasonable
questions about the importance and quantity of high- (and low-) intensity training
in the overall training process of the endurance athlete. Our goal with this article is
to discuss this issue in a way that integrates research and practice.
In view of the recent hype and the explosion in the number of studies
investigating interval training in various health, rehabilitation, and performance
settings, one could be forgiven for assuming that this training form was some
magic training pill scientists had devised comparatively recently. The reality is that
athletes have been using interval training for at least 60 years. So, some
discussion of interval training research is in order before we address the broader
question of training intensity distribution in competitive endurance athletes.
Interval Training: a Long History
International running coach Peter Thompson wrote in Athletics Weekly that
clear references to “repetition training” were seen already by the early 1900s
(Thompson, 2005). Nobel Prize winning physiologist AV Hill incorporated
intermittent exercise into his studies of exercising humans already in the 1920s
(Hill et al., 1924a; Hill et al., 1924b). About this time, Swede Gosta Holmer
introduced Fartlek to distance running (fart= speed and lek= play in Swedish).
 The specific term interval training is attributed to German coach Waldemer
Gerschler. Influenced by work physiologist Hans Reindell in the late 1930s, he
was convinced that alternating periods of hard work and recovery was an effective
adaptive stimulus for the heart. They apparently adopted the term because they
both believed that it was the recovery interval that was vital to the training effect.
Since then, the terms intermittent exercise, repetition training, and interval
training have all been used to describe a broad range of training prescriptions
involving alternating work and rest periods (Daniels and Scardina, 1984). In the
1960s, Swedish physiologists, led by Per Åstrand, performed groundbreaking
research demonstrating how manipulation of work duration and rest duration could
dramatically impact physiological responses to intermittent exercise (Åstrand et
al., 1960; Åstrand I, 1960; Christensen, 1960; Christensen et al., 1960). As Daniels
and Scardina (1984) concluded 25 years ago, their work laid the foundation for all
interval training research to follow. In their classic chapter Physical Training in
Textbook of Work Physiology, Åstrand and Rodahl (1986) wrote, “it is an
important but unsolved question which type of training is most effective: to
maintain a level representing 90 % of the maximal oxygen uptake for 40 min, or to
tax 100 % of the oxygen uptake capacity for about 16 min.” (The same chapter
from the 4th edition, published in 2003, can be read here.) This quote serves as an
appropriate background for defining high intensity aerobic interval training (HIT)
as we will use it in this article: repeated bouts of exercise lasting ~1 to 8 min and
eliciting an oxygen demand equal to ~90 to 100 % of VO2max, separated by rest
periods of 1 to 5 min (Seiler and Sjursen, 2004; Seiler and Hetlelid, 2005).
Controlled studies comparing the physiological and performance impact of
continuous training (CT) below the lactate turnpoint (typically 60-75 % of
VO2max for 30 min or more) and HIT began to emerge in the 1970s. Sample sizes
were small and the results were mixed, with superior results for HIT (Henriksson
and Reitman, 1976; Wenger and Macnab, 1975), superior results for CT (Saltin et
al., 1976), and little difference (Cunningham et al., 1979; Eddy et al., 1977;
Gregory, 1979). Like most published studies comparing the two types of training,
the CT and HIT interventions compared in these studies were matched for total
work (iso-energetic). In the context of how athletes actually train and perceive
training stress, this situation is artificial, and one we will come back to later.
McDougall and Sale (1981) published one of the earliest reviews comparing
the effects of continuous and interval training, directed at coaches and athletes.
They concluded that both forms of training were important, but for different
reasons. Two physiological assumptions that are now largely disproven influenced
their interpretation. First, they concluded that HIT was superior for inducing
peripheral changes, because the higher work intensity induced a greater degree of
skeletal muscle hypoxia. We now know that in healthy subjects, increased lactate
accumulation in the blood during exercise need not be due to increased muscle
hypoxia (Gladden, 2004). Second, they concluded that since stroke volume already
plateaus at 40-50 %VO2max, higher exercise intensities would not enhance
ventricular filling. We now know that stroke volume continues to rise at higher
intensities, perhaps even to VO2max, in well trained athletes (Gledhill et al., 1994;
Zhou et al., 2001). Assuming a stroke volume plateau at low exercise intensity,
they concluded that the benefit of exercise on cardiac performance was derived via
:
 stimulation of high cardiac contractility, which they argued peaked at about 75
%VO2max. Thus, moderate-intensity continuous exercise over longer durations
and therefore more heart beats was deemed most beneficial for enhancing cardiac
performance. While newer research no longer supports their specific conclusions,
they did raise the important point that there are underlying characteristics of the
physiological response to HIT and CT that should help explain any differential
impact on adaptive responses.
Poole and Gaesser (1985) published a citation classic comparing 8 wk of 3 ×
weekly training of untrained subjects for either 55 min at 50 %VO2max, 35 min at
75 %VO2max, or 10 × 2 min at 105 %VO2max with 2-min recoveries. They
observed no differences in the magnitude of the increase in either VO2max or
power at lactate threshold among the three groups. Their findings were
corroborated by Bhambini and Singh (1985) in a study of similar design published
the same year. Gorostiaga et al. (1991) reported findings that challenged
McDougall and Sale's conclusions regarding the adaptive specificity of interval
and continuous training. They had untrained subjects exercise for 30 min, three
days a week either as CT at 50 % of the lowest power eliciting VO2max, or as
HIT, alternating 30 s at 100 % of power at VO2max and 30 s rest, such that total
work was matched. Directly counter to McDougall and Sales conclusions, they
found HIT to induce greater changes in VO2max, while CT was more effective in
improving peripheral oxidative capacity and the lactate profile. At the beginning
of the 1990s, the available data did not support a consensus regarding the relative
efficacy of CT vs HIT in inducing peripheral or central changes related to
endurance performance.
Twenty years on, research continues regarding the extent to which VO2max,
fractional utilization of VO2max, and work efficiency/economy are differentially
impacted by CT and HIT in healthy, initially untrained individuals. Study results
continue to be mixed, with some studies showing no differences in peripheral and
central adaptations to CT vs HIT (Berger et al., 2006; Edge et al., 2006; Overend
et al., 1992) and others greater improvements with HIT (Daussin et al., 2008a;
Daussin et al., 2008b; Helgerud et al., 2007). When differences are seen, they lean
in the direction that continuous work at sub-maximal intensities promotes greater
peripheral adaptations and HIT promotes greater central adaptations (Helgerud et
al., 2007).
Controlled studies directly comparing CT and HIT in already well-trained
subjects were essentially absent from the literature until recently. However, a few
single-group design studies involving endurance athletes did emerge in the 1990s.
Acevedo and Goldfarb (1989) reported improved 10-km performance and
treadmill time to exhaustion at the same pace up a 2 % grade in well-trained
runners who increased their training intensity to 90-95 %VO2max on three of their
weekly training days. In these already well-trained athletes, VO2max was
unchanged after 8 wk of training intensification, but a right shift in the blood
lactate profile was observed. In 1996 -97, South African sport scientists published
the results of a single group intervention involving competitive cyclists (Lindsay et
al., 1996; Weston et al., 1997). They trained regionally competitive cyclists who
were specifically selected for study based on the criteria that they had not
undertaken any interval training in the 3-4 months prior to study initiation. When
:
 15 % of their normal training volume was replaced with 2 d.wk-1 interval training
for 3-4 wk (six training sessions of six 5-min high intensity work bouts), 40-km
time trial performance, peak sustained power output (PPO), and time to fatigue at
150 %PPO were all modestly improved. Physiological measurements such as
VO2max and lactate profile changes were not reported. Stepto and colleagues then
addressed the question of interval-training optimization in a similar sample of non-
interval trained, regional cyclists (Stepto et al., 1999). They compared interval
bouts ranging from 80 to 175 % of peak aerobic power (30 s to 8 min duration, 6-
32 min total work). Group sizes were small (n=3-4), but the one group that
consistently improved endurance test performance (~3 %) had used 4-min
intervals at 85 % PPO. These controlled training intensification studies essentially
confirmed what athletes and coaches seemed to have known for decades: some
high-intensity interval training should be integrated into the training program for
optimal performance gains. These studies also seemed to trigger a surge in interest
in the role of HIT in athlete performance development that has further grown in
recent years.
If doing some HIT (1-2 bouts per week) gives a performance boost, is more
even better? Billat and colleagues explored this question in a group of middle
distance runners initially training six sessions per week of CT only. They found
that a training intensification to four CT sessions, one HIT session, and one lactate
threshold (LT) session resulted in improved running speed at VO2max (but not
VO2max itself) and running economy. Further intensification to two CT sessions,
three HIT sessions and one LT session each week gave no additional adaptive
benefit, but did increase subjective training stress and indicators of impending
overtraining (Billat et al., 1999). In fact, training intensification over periods of 2-
8 wk with frequent high-intensity bouts (3-4 sessions per week) is an effective
means of temporarily compromising performance and inducing overreaching and
possibly overtraining symptoms in athletes (Halson and Jeukendrup, 2004). There
is likely an appropriate balance between high- and low-intensity training in the
day-to-day intensity distribution of the endurance athlete. These findings bring us
to two related questions: how do really good endurance athletes actually train, and
is there an optimal training intensity distribution for long-term performance
development?
While arguments can be made that tradition, resistance to change and even
superstition may negatively influence training methods of elite endurance athletes,
sports history tells us that athletes are experimental and innovative. Observing the
training methods of the world's best endurance athletes represent a more valid
picture of “best practice” than we can develop from short-term laboratory studies
of untrained or moderately trained subjects. In today’s performance environment,
where promising athletes have essentially unlimited time to train, all athletes train
a lot and are highly motivated to optimize the training process. Training ideas that
sound good but don't work in practice will fade away. Given these conditions, we
argue that any consistent pattern of training intensity distribution emerging across
sport disciplines is likely to be a result of a successful self-organization (evolution)
towards a “population optimum.” High performance training is an individualized
process for sure, but by population optimum, we mean an approach to training
organization that results in most athletes staying healthy, making good progress,
:
 and performing well in their most important events.
Exercise Intensity Zones
To describe intensity distribution in endurance athletes we have to first agree on
an intensity scale. There are different intensity zone schemes to choose from. Most
national sport governing bodies employ an intensity scale based on ranges of heart
rate relative to maximum and associated typical blood lactate concentration range.
Research approaches vary, but a number of recent research studies have identified
intensity zones based on ventilatory thresholds. Here we will examine an example
of each of these scales.
Table 1 shows the intensity scale used by all endurance sports in Norway. A
valid criticism of such a scale is that it does not account for individual variation in
the relationship between heart rate and blood lactate, or activity specific variation,
such as the tendency for maximal steady state concentrations for blood lactate to
be higher in activities activating less muscle mass (Beneke and von Duvillard,
1996; Beneke et al., 2001).

Table 1: A typical five-zone scale to prescribe and monitor

training of endurance athletes.
Intensity VO2 Heart rate Lactate Duration
zone (%max) (%max) (mmol.L-1) within zone
1 45-65 55-75 0.8-1.5 1-6 h
2 66-80 75-85 1.5-2.5 1-3 h
3 81-87 85-90 2.5-4 50-90 min
4 88-93 90-95 4-6 30-60 min
5 94-100 95-100 6-10 15-30 min
The heart rate scale is slightly simplified compared to the
actual scale used by the Norwegian Olympic Federation,
which is based primarily on decades of testing of cross-
country skiers, biathletes, and rowers.

Several recent studies examining training intensity distribution (Esteve-Lanao

et al., 2005; Seiler and Kjerland, 2006; Zapico et al., 2007) or performance
intensity distribution in multi-day events (Lucia et al., 1999; Lucia et al., 2003)
have employed the first and second ventilatory turnpoints to demarcate three
intensity zones (Figure 1). The 5-zone scale in the table above and the 3-zone scale
below are reasonably super-imposable in that intensity Zone 3 in the 5-zone
system coincides well with Zone 2 in the 3-zone model. While defining five
“aerobic” intensity zones is likely to be informative in training practice, it is
important to note that they are not based on clearly defined physiological markers.
Note also that 2-3 additional zones are typically defined to accommodate very
high intensity sprint, anaerobic capacity, and strength training. These zones are
typically defined as “anaerobic” Zones 6, 7, and 8.

Figure 1. Three intensity zones defined by physiological

determination of the first and second ventilatory
turnpoints using ventilatory equivalents for O2 (VT1)
and CO2 (VT2).
:
 Training Plans and Cellular Signaling
Athletes do not train at the same intensity or for the same duration every day.
These variables are manipulated from day to day with the implicit goals to
maximize physiological capacity over time, and stay healthy. Indeed, the former is
quite dependent on the latter. Training frequency is also a critical variable
manipulated by the athlete. This is particularly evident when comparing younger
(often training 5-8 times per week) and more mature athletes at peak performance
level (often training 10-13 sessions per week). Ramping up training frequency (as
opposed to training longer durations each session) is responsible for most of the
increase in yearly training hours observed as teenage athletes mature. Cycling
might be an exception to this general rule, since cycling tradition dictates single
daily sessions that often span 4-6 h among professionals. The ultimate targets of
the training process are individual cells. Changes in rates of DNA transcription,
RNA translation, and ultimately, synthesis of specific proteins or protein
constellations are induced via a cascade of intracellular signals induced by the
training bout. Molecular exercise biologists are unraveling how manipulation of
intensity and duration of exercise specifically modifies intracellular signaling and
resulting protein synthetic rates at the cellular or whole muscle/myocardial level
(Ahmetov and Rogozkin, 2009; Hoppeler et al., 2007; Joseph et al., 2006;
Marcuello et al., 2005; McPhee et al., 2009; Yan, 2009). About 85 % of all
publications involving gene expression and exercise are less than 10 y old, so we
do not yet know enough to relate results of Western blots to the specific training of
an athlete.
The signaling impact of a given exercise stress (intensity×duration) almost
certainly decays with training (Hoppeler et al., 2007; Nordsborg et al., 2003). For
example, AMP activated protein kinase α2 (AMPK) activity jumps 9-fold above
resting levels after 120 min of cycling at 66 %VO2max in untrained subjects.
However, after only 10 training sessions, almost no increase in AMPK is seen
after the same exercise bout (McConell et al., 2005). Manipulating exercise
intensity and duration also impacts the systemic stress responses associated with
training. Making this connection is further complicated by recent findings
suggesting that muscle glycogen depletion can enhance and antioxidant
supplementation can inhibit adaptations to training (Brigelius-Flohe, 2009;
Gomez-Cabrera et al., 2008; Hansen et al., 2005; Ristow et al., 2009; Yeo et al.,
:
 2008). It seems fair to conclude that while we suspect important differences exist,
we are not yet able to relate specific training variables (e.g., 60 min vs 120 min at
70 %VO2max) to differences in cell signaling in a detailed way. Our view of the
adaptive process remains limited to a larger scale. We can still identify some
potential signaling factors that are associated with increased exercise intensity
over a given duration (Table 2) or increased exercise duration at a given sub-
maximal intensity (Table 3). Some of these are potentially adaptive and others
maladaptive. There is likely substantial overlapping of effects between extending
exercise duration and increasing exercise intensity.
It may be a hard pill to swallow for some exercise physiologists, but athletes
and coaches do not need to know very much exercise physiology to train
effectively. They do have to be sensitive to how training manipulations impact
athlete health, daily training tolerance, and performance, and to make effective
adjustments. Over time, a successful athlete will presumably organize their
training in a way that maximizes adaptive benefit for a given perceived stress load.
That is, we can assume that highly successful athletes integrate this feedback
experience over time to maximize training benefit and minimize risk of negative
outcomes such as illness, injury, stagnation, or overtraining.

Table 2. Key physiological changes associated with an increase in exercise intensity from 70
%VO2max to ≥90 %VO2max for a given exercise duration.
Induced change Possible signal Possible positive Possible negative
effect effect
Increased Increased myofiber Increased maximal ??
diastolic filling stretch/load (Catalucci et al., stroke volume,
and end-diastolic 2008; Frank et al., 2008; compensatory
volume Pelliccia et al., 1999; Sheikh ventricular wall
et al., 2008)a thickening
Increased heart Increased rate pressure None likely given None likely given
rate and product and myocardial superior oxidative superior oxidative
intraventricular metabolic load (see below) capacity of cardiac capacity of cardiac
systolic pressure muscle muscle
Increased number Increased metabolic activity Enhanced whole Premature fatigue
of active muscle in faster motor units muscle fat oxidation/ and inadequate
fibers (motor (transduced via Cai and high right shift in lactate stimulus of low
units) energy phosphate turnpoint threshold motor
concentration shifts? (Diaz units?
and Moraes, 2008; Holloszy,
2008; Ojuka, 2004)
Expanded active Local mechanical and A mixture of ??
vascular bed via metabolic signals (Laughlin angiogenesis of
motor unit and Roseguini, 2008) arteries, capillaries
activation and veins and altered
control of vascular
resistance (Laughlin
and Roseguini, 2008)
Increased Decreased intracellular pH Enhanced buffer Premature fatigue
glycolytic rate capacity (Edge et al., at motor unit level
within active 2006; Weston et al., and reduced
fibers 1997) stimulus for
oxidative enzyme
:
 synthesis

Increased Cell exposure to increased ? Acutely delayed

sympathetic epinephrine and recovery of ANS
activation norepinephrine concentration (Seiler et al.,
in blood (concentration×time) 2007);
Chronic down-
regulation of α-
and β- adrenergic
receptor sensitivity
if repeated
excessively (Fry et
al., 2006; Lehmann
et al., 1997)
aIf cardiomyocyte stretch induces intracellular signals leading to ventricular hypertrophy, then
it is perhaps relevant that the myocardium may be stretched most in the moments of transition
from work to recovery when heart rate drops and venous return remains transiently high.

Table 3. Key physiological changes associated with increasing exercise duration at a

submaximal exercise intensity of 60-70 %VO2max from 45 min to 120 min.
Possible negative
Induced change Possible signal Possible positive effect effect
Increased Increased stimulus for Improved technical Technically
number of myelination of active motor stability, movement maladaptive if race
movement nerve pathways (Fields, economy intensity motor
repetitions 2006; Ishibashi et al., 2006) pattern were very
different?
Increased Increased metabolic activity Enhanced whole ??
activation of fast in faster motor units muscle fat oxidation/
motor units due (transduced via Cai and high right shift in lactate
to motor unit energy phosphate turnpoint
fatigue (Kamo, concentration shifts? (Diaz
2002) and Moraes, 2008; Holloszy,
2008; Ojuka, 2004)
Enhanced ?? May amplify signal for Potential
glycogen synthesis of specific accumulation of
depletion oxidative enzymes fatigue if dietary
(Chakravarthy and CHO is
Booth, 2004; Hansen et insufficient.
al., 2005)
Increased Large increase in plasma May amplify signal for ??
relative fat free fatty acid concentration mitochondrial
oxidation biogenesis (Holloszy,
2008)

Training Intensities of Elite Endurance Athletes

Empirical descriptions of the actual distribution of training intensity in well-
trained athletes have only recently emerged in the literature. The first time one of
us (Seiler) gave a lecture on the topic was in 1999, and there were few hard data to
present, but a fair share of anecdote and informed surmise. Carl Foster, Jack
Daniels and Seiler published a book chapter the same year, “Perspectives on
Correct Approaches to Training” that synthesized what we knew then (read
:
 chapter here via Google books). At that time, much of the discussion and research
related to the endurance training process focused on factors associated with
overtraining (a training control disaster), with little focus on what characterized
“successful training.” The empirical foundation for describing successful training
intensity distribution is stronger 10 years later.
Robinson et al. (1991) published what was according to the authors “the first
attempt to quantify training intensity by use of objective, longitudinal training
data.” They studied training characteristics of 13 national class male, New
Zealand runners with favorite distances ranging from 1500 m to the marathon.
They used heart rate data collected during training and related it to results from
standardized treadmill determinations of heart rate and running speed at 4-mM
blood lactate concentration (misnamed anaerobic threshold at the time). Over a
data collection period of 6-8 wk corresponding to the preparation phase, these
athletes reported that only 4 % of all training sessions were interval workouts or
races. For the remaining training sessions, average heart rate was only 77 % of
their heart rate at 4-mM blood lactate. This heart rate translates to perhaps 60-65
% of VO2max. The authors concluded that while their physiological test results
were similar to previous studies of well trained runners, the training intensity of
these runners was perhaps lower than optimal, based on prevailing
recommendations to perform most training at or around the lactate/anaerobic
threshold.
In one of the first rigorous quantifications of training intensity distribution
reported, Mujika et al. (1995) quantified the training intensity distribution of
national and international class swimmers over an entire season based on five
blood-lactate concentration zones. Despite specializing in 100-m and 200-m
events requiring ~60 to 120 s, these athletes swam 77 % of the 1150 km completed
during a season at an intensity below 2 mM lactate. The intensity distribution of
400- and 1500-m swim specialists was not reported, but was likely even more
weighted towards high-volume, low-intensity swimming.
Billat et al. (2001) performed physiological testing and collected data from
training diaries of French and Portuguese marathoners. They classified training
intensity in terms of three speeds: marathon, 10–km, and 3–km. During the 12 wk
preceding an Olympic trials marathon, the athletes in this study ran 78 % of their
training kilometers at below marathon speed, only 4 % at marathon race speed
(likely to be near VT1), and 18 % at 10–km or 3–km speed (likely to be > VT2).
This distribution of training intensity was identical in high-level (<2 h 16 min for
males and <2 h 38 min for females) and top-class athletes (<2 h 11 min and <2 h
32 min). But the top-class athletes ran more total kilometers and proportionally
more distance at or above 10–km speed.
Kenyan runners are often mythologized for the high intensity of their training.
It is therefore interesting that using the data from another descriptive study by
Billat et al. (2003), we calculated that elite male and female Kenyan 5- and 10-km
runners ran ~85 % of their weekly training kilometers below lactate-threshold
speed.
The first study on runners to quantify training intensity using three intensity
zones was that of Esteve-Lanao et al. (2005). They followed the training of eight
regional- and national-class Spanish distance runners over a six-month period
:
 broken into eight, 3-wk mesocycles. Heart rate was measured for every training
session to calculate the time spent in each heart-rate zone defined by treadmill
testing. All told, they quantified over 1000 heart-rate recordings. On average these
athletes ran 70 km.wk-1 during the six-month period, with 71 % of running time in
Zone 1, 21 % in Zone 2, and 8 % in Zone 3. Mean training intensity was 64
%VO2max. They also reported that performance times in both long and short races
were highly negatively correlated with total training time in Zone 1. They found
no significant correlation between the amount of high-intensity training and race
performance.
Rowers compete over a 2000-m distance requiring 6-7 min. Steinacker et al.
(1998) reported that extensive endurance training (60- to 120-min sessions at <2
mM blood lactate) dominated the training volume of German, Danish, Dutch, and
Norwegian elite rowers. Rowing at higher intensities was performed ~4-10 % of
the total rowed time. The data also suggested that German rowers preparing for the
world championships performed essentially no rowing at threshold intensity, but
instead trained either below 2 mM blood lactate or at intensities in the 6-12 mM
range.
Seiler collaborated with long time national team rower, coach, and talent
development coordinator Åke Fiskerstrand to examine historical developments in
training organization among international medal winning rowers from Norway
(Fiskerstrand and Seiler, 2004). Using questionnaire data, athlete training diaries,
and physiological testing records, they quantified training intensity distribution in
27 athletes who had won world or Olympic medals in the 1970s to 1990s. They
documented that over the three decades: training volume had increased about 20 %
and become more dominated by low-intensity volume; the monthly hours of high-
intensity training had dropped by one-third; very high intensity overspeed sprint
training had declined dramatically in favor of longer interval training at 85-95
%VO2max; and the number of altitude camps attended by the athletes increased
dramatically. Over this 30-y timeline, VO2max and rowing ergometer performance
improved by ~10 % with no change in average height or body mass. Most of the
changes occurred between the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with major
adjustments in training intensity.
Most recently, Gullich et al. (2009) described the training of world class junior
rowers from Germany during a 37-wk period culminating in national
championships and qualification races for the world championships (online ahead
of print here). These were very talented junior rowers, with 27 of 36 athletes
winning medals in the junior world championships that followed the study period.
Remarkably, 95 % of their rowing training was performed below 2 mM blood
lactate, based on daily heart-rate monitoring and rowing ergometer threshold
determinations performed at the beginning of the season. This heavy dominance
of extensive endurance training persisted across mesocycles. However, the
relatively small volume of Zone 2 and Zone 3 work shifted towards higher
intensities from the basic preparation phase to the competition phase. That is, the
intensity distribution became more polarized. It is important to point out that time-
in-zone allocation based on heart-rate cut-offs (the kind of analysis performed by
software from heart watch manufacturers) underestimates the time spent
performing high-intensity exercise and the impact of that work on the stress load
:
 of an exercise session (Seiler and Kjerland, 2006). Although the outcomes are
biased by this problem, there was still a clear shift in the intensity distribution
towards large volumes of low- to moderate-intensity training. We also evaluated
retrospectively whether there were any differences in junior training characteristics
between a subgroup of rowers who went on to win international medals as seniors
within three years (14 of 36 athletes) and the remainder of the sample, who all
continued competing at the national level. The only physical or training
characteristic that distinguished the most successful rowers from their peers was a
tendency to distribute their training in a more polarized fashion; that is, they
performed significantly more rowing at very low aerobic intensities and at the
highest intensities. We concluded that the greater polarization observed might have
been due to better management of intensity (keeping hard training hard and easy
training easy) among the most successful athletes. This polarization might protect
against overstress.
Professional road cyclists are known for performing very high training
volumes, up to 35,000 km.y-1. Zapico and colleagues (2007) used the 3-intensity
zone model to track training characteristics from November to June in a group of
elite Spanish under-23 riders. In addition, physiological testing was performed at
season start and at the end of the winter and spring mesocycles. There was an
increase in total training volume and a four-fold increase in Zone 3 training
between the winter and spring mesocycles (Figure 2), but there was no further
improvement in power at VT1, VT2 or at VO2max between the end of the winter
and spring mesocycles (Figure 3), despite the training intensification. Anecdotally,
this finding is not unusual, despite the fact that athletes feel fitter. It may be that
VT2 and VO2max determination using traditional methods can miss an important
increase in the duration that can be maintained at the associated workloads.

Figure 2. Cycling intensity and volume of elite Spanish U23 cyclists training in the
period November to June. Data redrawn from Zapico et al. (Zapico et al., 2007).

Figure 3. Response to periodization of training intensity and volume in elite Spanish U23
cyclists. Physiological test results from tests performed before starting the winter mesocycle
:
 (Test 1), at the end of the winter mesocycle (Test 2), and at the end of the Spring mesocycle
(Test 3). Data redrawn from Zapico et al. (2007).

Individual and team pursuit athletes in cycling compete over about 4 min. The
event appeals to sport scientists because the performance situation is highly
controlled and amenable to accurate modeling of the variables on both sides of the
power balance equation. Schumacher and Mueller (2002) demonstrated the
validity of this approach in predicting “gold medal standards” for physiological
testing and power output in track cycling. However, less obvious from the title was
the detailed description of the training program followed by the German cyclists
monitored in the study, ultimately earning a gold medal in Sydney in world-record
time. These athletes trained to maintain 670 W in the lead position and ~450 W
when following using a training program dominated by continuous low to
moderate intensity cycling on the roads (29-35,000 km.y-1). In the 200 d preceding
the Olympics, the athletes performed “low-intensity, high-mileage” training at 50-
60 % of VO2max on ~140 d. Stage races took up another ~40 d. Specific track
cycling at near competition intensities was performed on less than 20 d between
March and September. In the ~110 d preceding the Olympic final, high-intensity
interval track training was performed on only 6 d.
Units for Training Intensity
Cross country skiers have rather legendary status in exercise physiology circles
for their aerobic capacity and endurance capacity in arms and legs. Seiler et al.
(2006) studied 12 competitive to nationally elite male 17–y old skiers from a
special skiing high school in the region. The mean VO2max for the group was 72
ml.kg-1min-1. They were guided by coaches with national team coaching
experience and were trained along similar lines to the seniors, but with
substantially lower volumes of training. Like Esteve-Lanao (2005) did with
runners, we used heart-rate monitoring to quantify all endurance sessions and
determined three aerobic intensity zones based on ventilatory turn points. We also
recorded the athletes' rating of perceived exertion (RPE) using the methods of
Foster et al. (1996; 1998; 2001a) for all training bouts. Finally, we collected blood
lactate during one training week to relate heart rate and perceived exertion
measurements to blood lactate values.
:
 When comparing the three different intensity quantification methods, we
addressed the issue of how training intensity is best quantified. Heart-rate
monitoring is clearly appealing. We can save heart rate data, download entire
workouts to analysis software, and quantify the time heart rate falls within specific
pre-defined intensity zones. Using this “time-in-zone” approach, we found that 91
% of all training time was spent at a heart rate below VT1 intensity, ~6 % between
VT1 and VT2, and only 2.6 % of all 15-s heart rate registrations were performed
above VT2. We then quantified intensity by allocating each training session to one
of the three zones based on the goal of the training and heart rate analysis. We
called this the “session-goal approach”. For low-intensity continuous bouts, we
used average heart rate for the entire bout. For bouts designed to be threshold
training we averaged heart rate during the threshold-training periods. For high-
intensity interval-training sessions, we based intensity on the average peak heart
rate for each interval bout. Using this approach, intensity distribution derived from
heart rate responses closely matched the session RPE (Figure 4), training diary
distribution based on workout description, and blood-lactate measurements. The
agreement between the session-by-session heart-rate quantification and session
RPE-based assignment of intensity was 92 %. In their training diaries, athletes
recorded 30-41 training sessions in 32 d and described 75% of their training bouts
as low intensity continuous, 5% as threshold workouts, and 17% as intervals.

Figure 4. Comparison of training intensity distribution

in well trained junior cross-country skiers using
traditional heart-rate (HR) time-in-zone, session goal
HR analysis, and session rating of perceived exertion
(RPE). Time-in-zone data represents total distribution
of training time for all athletes combined. Data
redrawn from Seiler and Kjerland (2006).

We have also recently observed the same time-in-zone mismatch when

quantifying intensity distribution in soccer training (unpublished data). It seems
clear that typical software-based heart-rate analysis methods overestimate the
amount of time spent training at low intensity and underestimate the time spent at
very high workloads compared to athlete perception of effort. We think this
mismatch is important, because the unit of stress perceived and responded to by
the athlete is the stress of the entire training session or perhaps training day, not
minutes in any given heart-rate zone.
:
 The 80:20 Rule for Intensity
In spite of differences in the methods for quantifying training intensity, all of
the above studies show remarkable consistency in the training distribution pattern
selected by successful endurance athletes. About 80 % of training sessions are
performed completely or predominantly at intensities under the first ventilatory
turn point, or a blood-lactate concentration £2mM. The remaining ~20 % of
sessions are distributed between training at or near the traditional lactate threshold
(Zone 2), and training at intensities in the 90-100 %VO2max range, generally as
interval training (Zone 3). An elite athlete training 10-12 times per week is
therefore likely to dedicate 1-3 sessions weekly to training at intensities at or
above the maximum lactate steady state. This rule of thumb coincides well with
training studies demonstrating the efficacy of adding two interval sessions per
week to a training program (Billat et al., 1999; Lindsay et al., 1996; Weston et al.,
1997). Seiler and Kjerland (2006) have previously gone so far as say that the
optimal intensity distribution approximated a “polarized distribution” with 75-80
% of training sessions in Zone 1, 5 % in Zone 2, and 15-20 % in Zone 3. However,
there is considerable variation in how athletes competing in different sports and
event durations distribute their training intensity within Zones 2 and 3.
Why has this training pattern emerged? We do not have sufficient research to
answer this question, but we can make some reasonable guesses. One group of
factors would involve the potential for this distribution to best stimulate the
constellation of training adaptations required for maximal endurance performance.
For example, large volumes of training at low intensity might be optimal for
maximizing peripheral adaptations, while relatively small volumes of high
intensity training fulfill the need for optimizing signaling for enhanced cardiac
function and buffer capacity. Technically, lots of low intensity training may be
effective by allowing lots of repetitions to engrain correct motor patterns. On the
other side of the adaptation-stress equation is the stress induced by training.
Athletes may migrate towards a strategy where longer duration is substituted for
higher intensity to reduce the stress reactions associated with training and facilitate
rapid recovery from frequent training (Seiler et al., 2007). Interestingly, Foster and
colleagues reported a very similar intensity distribution by professional cyclists
during the 3 wk and 80+ racing hours of the grand tours, such as the Tour de
France. Perhaps this distribution represents a form of pacing that emerges over the
months of elite training (Foster et al., 2005).
”Low intensity”–between 50 %VO2max and just under the first lactate
turnpoint–represents a wide intensity range in endurance athletes. There is
probably considerable individual variation in where within this range athletes
accumulate most of their low-intensity training volume. Technique considerations
may play in: athletes have to train at a high enough intensity to allow correct
technique. For example, Norwegian Olympic flat-water kayak gold medalist Eric
Verås Larsen explained that the reason most of his Zone 1 continuous endurance
training tended to be closer to his lactate threshold than normally observed was
that he could not paddle with competition technique at lower intensities (Verås
Larsen, personal communication). These qualifiers aside, we conclude that a large
fraction of the training within this zone is being performed at ~60-65 %VO2max,
We note that this intensity is about the intensity associated with maximal fat
:
 utilization in trained subjects (Achten and Jeukendrup, 2003), but it is unclear why
optimizing fat utilization would be important for athletes competing over 3-15
min.
Training Volume of Elite Athletes
Obviously, training intensity distribution and training volume together will
determine the impact of training. Elite athletes train a lot, but to be more specific
requires some common metric for comparing athletes in different sports. Runners
and cyclists count kilometers, swimmers count thousands of meters, and rowers
and cross-country skiers count training hours. With a few reasonable assumptions,
we can convert these numbers to annual training hours. This physiological metric
is appropriate, since the body is sensitive to stress duration.
Training volume increases with age in high-level performers, mostly through
increased training frequency in sports like running and cross-country skiing, but
also through increases in average session duration, particularly in cycling. A
talented teenage cyclist training five days a week might accumulate 10-15 h.wk-1.
A professional cyclist from Italy performing a 1000-km training week will likely
be on the bike between 25 and 30 h.
Cycling 30-35,000 kilometers a year at, say, ~35 km.h-1 with occasional
sessions of strength training, will add up to ~1000 h.y-1. An elite male marathoner
would likely never run more than about 15 hours in a week. At an average running
speed of 15 km.h-1, that would be at most 225 km. Former world record holder in
the 5 km, 10 km, and marathon, Ingrid Kristiansen trained 550 h.y-1 when she was
running (Espen Tønnessen, unpublished data). At a younger age, when she
competed in the Olympics for Norway as a cross country skier, she actually trained
150 more h.y-1. Bente Skari, one of the most successful female cross country
skiers ever, recorded peak annual training loads of 800 h.y-1 (Espen Tønnessen,
unpublished data). Annual training volume measured in hours is around 1000
among world class rowers. For example, Olaf Tufte recorded 1100 training hours
in 2004, when he took his first gold medal in the single scull event (Aasen, 2008).
His monthly training volume for that year is shown in Figure 5. Of these hours,
about 92 % were endurance training, with the remainder being primarily strength
training. An Olympic champion swimmer like Michael Phelps may record even
higher annual training volumes, perhaps as much as 1300 h (a reasonable guess
based on training of other swimming medalists).

Figure 5. Annual training intensity distribution and volume of an Olympic

champion rower. Data below are for two-time gold medalist Olaf Tufte in the
training season 2003-2004. The Olympic competition was held in August. Data
redrawn from Aasen (2008). Training zones are as described in Table 1.
:
 The Kenyan marathoner, Italian cyclist, Norwegian rower and American
swimmer are all at the top of their sport, but when we measure their training
volume in hours, they seem quite different, with international success being
achieved with a two-fold or larger range in hours per year (Figure 6). What can
explain this difference? One explanation is that the muscle, tendon, and joint
loading stress of the different movements vary dramatically. Running imposes
severe ballistic loading stress that is not present in cycling or swimming. There
seems to be a strong inverse relationship between tolerated training volume and
degree of eccentric or ballistic stress of the sport. Swimming, rowing, and cross-
country skiing are all highly technical events with movement patterns that do not
draw on the genetically pre-programmed motor pathways of running. Thus high
volumes of training may be as important for technical mastery as for physiological
adaptation in these disciplines. Rowers and speed skaters do less movement-
specific training than most other athletes, but they accumulate substantial
additional hours of strength training and other forms of endurance training.

Figure 6. Representative peak annual training volumes for champion athletes from
different sports. Ballistic and eccentric loading differences, demands on technical
entrainment, and non-specific training volume may all contribute to the differences.
:
 Intensified-Training Studies
Is the “80:20” training intensity distribution observed for successful athletes
really optimal, or would a redistribution of training intensity towards more
threshold and high intensity interval training and less long slow distance training
stimulate better gains and higher performance? Proponents of large volumes of
interval training might invoke the famous pareto principle and propose that in
keeping with this “rule” of effects vs causes, these athletes are achieving 80 % of
their adaptive gains with 20 % of their training and wasting valuable training
energy. In the last 10 y, several studies have been published addressing this
question.
Evertsen et al. (1997; 1999; 2001) published the first of three papers from a
study involving training intensification in 20 well-trained junior cross-country
skiers competing at the national or international level. All of the subjects had
trained and competed regularly for 4-5 years. In the two months before study
initiation, 84 % of training was carried out at 60-70 %VO2max, with the remainder
at 80-90 %VO2max. They were then randomized to a moderate-intensity (MOD)
or a high-intensity training group (HIGH). MOD maintained essentially the same
training-intensity distribution they had used previously, but training volume was
increased from 10 to 16 h.wk-1. HIGH reversed their baseline intensity distribution
so that 83 % of training time was performed at 80-90 %VO2max, with only 17 %
performed as low-intensity training. This group trained 12 h.wk-1. The training
intervention lasted five months. Intensity control was achieved using heart-rate
monitoring and blood-lactate sampling.
Despite 60 % more training volume in MOD and perhaps 400 % more training
at lactate threshold or above in HIGH, physiological and performance changes
were modest in both groups of already well-trained athletes. Findings from the
three papers are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of a 5-month training intensification

study with well trained cross-country skiers (Evertsen et
al., 1997; Evertsen et al., 1999; Evertsen et al., 2001).
High Moderate
intensity intensity
(n=10) (n=10)
VO2max « «
Lactate-threshold speed ↑3% «
20-min run at 9 % grade ↑ 3.8 % ↑ 1.9 %
:
 Fiber type « «
Enzyme activities
MCT 1 transporter « ¯ 12 %
MCT 4 transporter « «
Citrate synthase « «
Succinate dehydrogenase ↑6% «

Gaskill et al. (1999) reported the results of a 2-y project involving 14 cross-
country skiers training within the same club who were willing to have their
training monitored and manipulated. The design was interesting and practically
relevant. During the first year, athletes all trained similarly, averaging 660 training
hours with 16 % at lactate threshold or higher (nominal distribution of sessions).
Physiological test results and race performances during the first year were used to
identify seven athletes who responded well to the training and seven who showed
poor VO2max and lactate-threshold progression, and race results. In the second
year, the positive responders continued using their established training program.
The non-responders performed a markedly intensified training program with a
slight reduction in training hours. The non-responders from Year 1 showed
significant improvements with the intensified program in Year 2 (VO2max, lactate
threshold, race points). The positive responders from Year 1 showed a similar
development in Year 2 as in Year 1.
It is interesting in this context to point out that many elite athletes now extend
the periodization of their training to a 4-y Olympic cycle. The first year after an
Olympics is a “recovery season”, followed by a building season, then a season of
very high training volume, culminating with the Olympic season, where training
volume is reduced and competition specificity is emphasized more. Variation in
the pattern of training may be important for maximal development, but these large
scale rhythms of training have not been studied.
Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007) randomized 12 sub-elite distance runners to one of
two training groups (Z1 and Z2) that were carefully monitored for five months.
They based their training intensity distribution on the 3-zone model described
earlier and determined from treadmill testing. Based on time-in-zone heart-rate
monitoring, Z1 performed 81, 12, and 8 % of training in Zones 1, 2, and 3
respectively. Z2 performed more threshold training, with 67, 25, and 8 % of
training performed in the three respective zones. That is, Group Z2 performed
twice as much training at or near the lactate threshold. In a personal
communication, the authors reported that in pilot efforts, they were unable to
achieve a substantial increase in the total time spent in Zone 3, as it was too hard
for the athletes. Total training load was matched between the groups. Improvement
in a cross-country time-trial performed before and after the five-month period
revealed that the group that had performed more Zone 1 training showed
significantly greater race time improvement (-157 ± 13 vs -122 ± 7 s).
Most recently, Ingham et al. (2008) were able to randomize 18 experienced
national standard male rowers from the UK into one of two training groups that
were initially equivalent based on performance and physiological testing. All the
rowers had completed a 25-d post-season training-free period just prior to baseline
testing. One group performed “100 %” of all training at intensities below that
:
 eliciting 75 %VO2max (LOW). The other group performed 70 % training at the
same low intensities as well as 30 % of training at an intensity 50 % of the way
between power at lactate threshold and power at VO2max (MIX). In practice, MIX
performed high intensity training on 3 d.wk-1. All training was performed on a
rowing ergometer over the 12 wk. The two groups performed virtually identical
volumes of training (~1140 km on the ergometer), with ±10 % individual variation
allowed to accommodate for variation in athlete standard. Results of the study are
summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of physiological and performance

changes in well trained rowers training for 12 wk at either
low intensity or mixed intensity (70 % low, 30 % high)
(Ingham et al., 2008).
Low Mixed
(n=9) (n=9)
2000-m speed ↑2% ↑ 1.4 %
VO2max ↑ 11 % ↑ 10 %
Power at 2-mM lactate ↑ 10 % ↑2%
Power at 4-mM lactate ↑ 14 % ↑5%
Various VO2 kinetics « «

Sixteen of 18 subjects set new personal bests for the 2000-m ergometer test at
the end of the study. The authors concluded that LOW and MIX training had
similar positive effects on performance and maximal oxygen consumption. LOW
training appeared to induce a greater right-shift in the blood-lactate profile during
sub-maximal exercise, which did not translate to a significantly greater gain in
performance. If MIX training enhanced or preserved anaerobic capacity more than
LOW, this may have compensated for the observed differences in blood-lactate
profile.
Intensity for Recreational Athletes
Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the
pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for
recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost
no published data addressing this question. Recently Esteve-Lanao (personal
communication) completed an interesting study on recreational runners comparing
a program that was designed to reproduce the polarized training of successful
endurance athletes and compare it with a program built around much more
threshold training in keeping with the ACSM exercise guidelines. The intended
intensity distribution for the two training groups was: Polarized 77-3-20 % and
ACSM 46-35-19 % for Zones 1, 2, and 3. However, heart-rate monitoring revealed
that the actual distribution was: Polarized 65-21-14 % and ACSM 31-56-13 %.
Comparing the intended and achieved distributions highlights a typical training
error committed by recreational athletes. We can call it falling into a training
intensity “black hole.” It is hard to keep recreational people training 45-60 min a
day 3-5 days a week from accumulating a lot of training time at their lactate
threshold. Training intended to be longer and slower becomes too fast and shorter
in duration, and interval training fails to reach the desired intensity. The result is
:
 that most training sessions end up being performed at the same threshold intensity.
Foster et al. (2001b) also found that athletes tend to run harder on easy days and
easier on hard days, compared to coaches' training plans. Esteve Lanao did
succeed in getting two groups to distribute intensity very differently. The group
that trained more polarized, with more training time at lower intensity, actually
improved their 10-km performance significantly more at 7 and 11 wk. So,
recreational athletes could also benefit from keeping low- and high-intensity
sessions at the intended intensity.
Interval training can be performed effectively with numerous combinations of
work duration, rest duration, and intensity. We have found that when subjects self-
select running speed based on a standard prescription, 4-min work duration and 2-
min recovery duration combine to give the highest physiological response and
maintained speed (Seiler and Sjursen, 2004; Seiler and Hetlelid, 2005). However,
perceptual and physiological response differences across the typical work and
recovery spectrum are fairly small and performance enhancement differences are
unclear at best. Some researchers have proposed that specific interval regimes
(e.g., 4 × 4 min at 95 %VO2max) may be superior for achieving adaptive gains
(Helgerud et al., 2007; Wisloff et al., 2007), but other research studies and our
observations of athlete practice suggest that a variety of combinations of work and
rest duration are effective for long-term development. Table 6 shows typical
combinations of intensity and effective duration used by elite endurance athletes
for workouts in the different aerobic training zones described earlier. All the
examples are taken from the training diaries of elite performers. The effective
durations for the different zones are utilized by highly trained athletes. For those
without the same training base, similar workouts would be performed but with less
total effective duration.

Table 6. Typical training sessions performed by highly

trained athletes in five intensity zones (Aasen, 2008).
VO2 Examples of training Manageable
Zone (%max) sessions durationa
1 45-65 Continuous bouts 60-360 min
2 66-80 Continuous bouts 60-180 min
3 81-87 6 x 15 min, 2-min rec 50-90 min
2 x 25 min, 3-min rec
5 x 10 min, 2-min rec
8 x 8 min, 2-min rec
LT 40-60 min
50 x 1 min, 20-s rec
4 88-93 10 x 6 min, 2-3-min rec 30-60 min
8 x 5 min, 3-min rec
15 x 3 min, 1-min rec
40 x 1 min, 30-s rec
10 x (5 x 40 s, 20-s rec),
2- to 3-min breaks
30-40 min steady state
5 94-100 6 x 5 min, 3-4-min rec 24-30 min
6 x 4 min, 4-min rec
8 x 3 min, 2-min rec
:
 5 x (5 x 1 min, 30-s
rec),
2- to 3-min breaks
a Warm-up and rest periods in interval bouts are not
included.
LT, lactate threshold (max steady state); rec, recoveries.

Case Studies of Training Manipulation

Case studies are the weakest form of scientific evidence. But, for coaches and
high performance athlete support teams, each elite athlete is a case study. So, we
present here two case studies that we think are instructive in demonstrating the
potential physiological impact of successfully manipulating training volume and
intensity distribution variables at the individual level. Both cases involve
Norwegian athletes who were followed closely by one of the authors (Tønnessen).
Both would be considered already highly trained prior to the training
reorganization.
Case 1–From Soccer Pro to Elite Cyclist
Knut Anders Fostervold was a professional soccer player in the Norwegian
elite league from 1994 to 2002. A knee injury ended his soccer career at age 30
and he decided to switch to cycling. Knut had very high natural endurance
capacity and had run 5 km in 17:24 at age 12. After 15 y of soccer training at the
elite level, he adopted a highly intensive training regime for cycling that was
focused on training just under or at his lactate threshold and near VO2max; for
example, 2-3 weekly training sessions of 4-5 × 4 min at 95 %VO2max. Weekly
training volume did not exceed 10 h.
After 2.5 years of this high-intensity, low-volume training, Fostervold initiated
cooperation with the Norwegian Olympic Center and his training program was
radically reorganized. Weekly training volume was doubled from 8-10 h to 18-20.
Training volume in Zone 2 was reduced dramatically and replaced with a larger
volume of training in Zone 1. Training in Zone 5 was replaced with Zones 3 and
4, such that total training volume at intensities at or above lactate threshold was
roughly doubled without overstressing the athlete. The typical effective duration of
interval sessions increased from ~20 min to ~ 60 min (for example 8 × 8 min at
85-90 %HRmax with 2-min recoveries). The intensity zones were initially based
on heart rate but later adjusted relative to lactate and power output measurements
made in the field. Table 7 shows the training intensity distribution and volume
loading for the athlete during the season before and after the change in training to
a high-volume program. Table 8 shows the outcome.

Table 7. Comparison of weekly training intensity

distribution and total volume in 2004 season and 2005
season – Case 1.
Intensity zone Season 2004 Season 2005
(%HRmax) (h:min) (h:min)
5 (95-100 %) 0:45 (8.5 %) 0:05 (0.5 %)
4 (90-95 %) – 0:40 (4.0 %)
3 (85-90 %) 0:30 (5.5 %) 1:00 (5.5 %)
2 (75-85 %) 3:05 (36 %) 1:00 (5.5 %)
:
 1 (55-75 %) 4:20 (50 %) 15:20 (85 %)
Weekly totala 8:40 18:05

Annual totala 420:00 850:00

HRmax: maximum heart rate.
aEstimates based on diaries for the first 18 wk.

Table 8. Physiological testing before and after training

reorganization – Case 1.
8 wk 18 wk Change
Pre post post 0-18 wk
BW (kg) 84 81 84 0%
VO2max (ml×kg– 81 90 88 11 %
1×min–1)

VO2max (L×min–1) 6.8 7.3 7.3 7%

LT power (W) 375 420 440 14 %
LT power (W×kg-1) 4.5 5.2 5.2 15 %

The athlete responded well to the training load amplification and

reorganization. During the 2005 season, after 2.5 y performing a low-volume,
high-intensity program, a season training with higher volume and lower average
intensity resulted in marked physiological and performance improvement.
Although the athlete’s training de-emphasized both training near his lactate
threshold intensity and training at near VO2max, both of these physiological
anchors improved markedly.
Fostervold won a bronze medal in the Norwegian national time-trial
championships, seconds behind former world under-23 time trial champions and
Tour de France stage winners Thor Hushovd and Kurt Asle Arvesen. His failure
to perform even better, given his exceptionally high VO2max, was attributed to
poorer cycling efficiency and aerodynamics and a lower fractional utilization at
lactate threshold compared to the best professionals with many years of specific
training. In 2006 and 2007 he represented Norway in the world championship time
trial. His absolute VO2max in 2005 was equal to the highest ever measured in
a Norwegian athlete.
Case 2–From Modern Pentathlete to Runner
Prior to 2003, Øystein Sylta was a military pentathlete (European champion in
2003). In the Fall of 2003 he decided to focus on distance running and is now
nationally competitive, with personal bests for 3000-m steeplechase, 5000-m, and
10000-m of 8:31, 14:04 and 29:12 respectively. His case is interesting due to the
dramatic change in training volume and intensity distribution he undertook from
2003 to 2004 and associated changes in physiological test results.
Prior to 2003, Sylta trained using a high-intensity, low-volume training
structure. When he agreed to try a new approach, emphasis was placed on
increasing training volume with low-intensity sessions and changing his interval
training. He either trained long slow distance or long intense interval sessions.
However, his total training distance at intensities above his lactate threshold was
reduced and redistributed. From 2002/2003 to 2003/2004 he increased his total
:
 running distance from 3,500 to 5,900 km. He also reduced his strength training
from 100 annual hours to 50. Table 9 shows a typical hard training week in the
Fall of 2003 and Fall of 2004, and Table 10 summarizes the running specific
training. His physiological adaption to the first year of restructured training is
documented in Table 11.

Table 9. Comparison of actual training composition

during a hard training week, Fall 2003 and Fall 2004 –
Case 2.
Day Fall 2003 Fall 2004
Mon 60-min run, Z1-2 S1: 50-min run, Z1
S2: 65-min run, Z1
Tues 7x1000 m, 90-s S 1: 45-min run, Z1
recovery, Z4 S2: 12 x 5-min, 1-min
recovery, Z3
Wed S 1: 40-min run, Z1 S 1: 45-min run, Z1
S 2: 50-min run, Z1-2 S 2: 75-min run, Z1
+ 45-min strength
Thur 17x300m, 52s, 40-s S1: 45-min run, Z1
recovery, Z5 S 2: 12 x 3-min,
1-min rec, Z4
Fri 55min run, Z1 45-min run Z1
Sat S 1: 40-min run Z1 + S 1: 45-min run, Z1
30-min strength S 2: 60-min run, Z1
S 2: 4 x 7-min
intervals, 2-min
recovery, Z3
Sun 100-min run Z1 150-min run Z1
Interval sessions were preceded and ended with 15-20-
min easy running both seasons. In both seasons, easy
runs were concluded with 5-8 x 100 m strides.
Intensity zones (Z) are as shown in Table 7.

Table 10. Annual training volume and intensity

distribution in 2003 and 2004 – Case 2.
Intensity zone 2003 season 2004 season
5 (95-100 %) 3 % (8 h) 0,5 % (2 h)
4 (90-95 %) 12 % (33 h) 2,5 % (13 h)
3 (85-90 %) 13 % (36 h) 10 % (50 h)
2 (75-85 %) 18 % (49 h) 4 % (20 h)
1 (55-75 %) 54 % (149 h) 83 % (412 h)
Total for yeara 275 h 497 h
a100 h of strength training in 2003 and 50 h in 2004 are
not included in the totals.

Table 11. Physiological testing before and after training

reorganization – Case 2.
Sep 03 Feb 04 Change
:
 Body mass (kg) 74 71 -4 %
VO2max (ml×kg–
1×min–1) 76 83 9%
VO2max (L×min–1) 5.6 5.9 5%
Lactate threshold (km.h-
1) 16.9 17.7 5%

From 2003 to 2009, Sylta’s threshold running speed increased from 16.9 to
19.5 km.h-1. From 2002 to 2009, his 10-km time improved from 31:44 to 29:12,
and 3000-m steeplechase from 9:11 to 8:31. In the first five months of training
reorganization, his 3000-m steeple result improved by 30 s.
Both these case studies demonstrate that even in already well trained athletes,
meaningful improvements in physiological test results and performance may occur
with appropriate training intensity and volume manipulation. Both athletes
showed clear improvements in physiological testing despite reductions in HIT
training. Both seemed to respond positively to an increase in total training volume
and specifically, more low-intensity volume.
Valid Comparisons of Training Interventions
Matching training programs based on total work or oxygen consumption seems
sensible in a laboratory. As we noted earlier, this has been the preferred method of
matching when comparing the effects of continuous and interval training in
controlled studies. Unfortunately, it is not realistic from the view of athletes
pursuing maximal performance. They do not compare training sessions or adjust
training time to intensity in this manner. A key issue here is the non-linear impact
of exercise intensity on the manageable accumulated duration of intermittent
exercise. We have exemplified this in Table 12 by comparing some typical training
sessions from the training of elite athletes.

Table 12. Typical duration and intensity combinations used in training sessions by elite
endurance athletes.
Durationa Intensity Total Training loadc
(min) (%VO 2 max) b
VO2 (L) (RPE.min)
Basic endurance 120 60 360 240-360
Threshold training (lactate ~3-4
mM) 60 (4x15) 85 293 375
90 % intervals (lactate ~5-7 mM) 40 (5x8) 90 218 375-425
VO2max intervals (lactate ~6-10
mM) 24 (6x4) 95 152 300-350
aWarm-up not included.
bOxygen consumption calculations based on a male athlete with 5 L.min-1 VO2max and
include 15 min warm up at 50 %VO2max for threshold and interval sessions. Examples are
based on a manageable accumulated duration at different interval training intensities, and
drawn from the training diaries of elite athletes.
cSession rating of perceived exertion x duration (Foster et al., 1996; Seiler et al., 2007).

The point we want to make is that the athlete’s perception of the stress of
:
 performing 4 × 15 min at 85 %VO2max is about the same as that of performing 6
× 4 min at 95 %VO2max, even though total work performed is very different. If
we want to answer a question like, “is near VO2max interval training more
effective for achieving performance gains in athletes than training at the maximal
lactate steady state?”, then the matching of training bouts has to be realistic from
the perspective of perceived stress and how athletes train. Future studies of
training intensity effects on adaptation and performance should take this issue of
ecological validity into account.
Conclusions
Optimization of training methods is an area of great interest for scientists,
athletes, and fitness enthusiasts. One challenge for sport scientists is to translate
short-term training intervention study results to long-term performance
development and fitness training organization. Currently, there is great interest in
high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs. However, careful
evaluation of both available research and the training methods of successful
endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to over-prescribe high-
intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of intensity over duration.
Here are some conclusions that seem warranted by the available data and
experience from observations of elite performers:
• There is reasonable evidence that an ~80:20 ratio of low to high intensity
training (HIT) gives excellent long-term results among endurance athletes
training daily.
• Low intensity (typically below 2 mM blood lactate), longer duration training is
effective in stimulating physiological adaptations and should not be viewed as
wasted training time.
• Over a broad range, increases in total training volume correlate well with
improvements in physiological variables and performance.
• HIT should be a part of the training program of all exercisers and endurance
athletes. However, about two training sessions per week using this modality
seems to be sufficient for achieving performance gains without inducing
excessive stress.
• The effects of HIT on physiology and performance are fairly rapid, but rapid
plateau effects are seen as well. To avoid premature stagnation and ensure
long-term development, training volume should increase systematically as well.
• When already well-trained athletes markedly intensify training with more HIT
over 12 to ~45 wk, the impact is equivocal.
• In athletes with an established endurance base and tolerance for relatively high
training loads, intensification of training may yield small performance gains at
acceptable risk.
• An established endurance base built from reasonably high volumes of training
may be an important precondition for tolerating and responding well to a
substantial increase in training intensity over the short term.
• Periodization of training by elite athletes is achieved with reductions in total
volume, and a modest increase in the volume of training performed above the
lactate threshold. An overall polarization of training intensity characterizes the
transition from preparation to competition mesocycles. The basic intensity
distribution remains similar throughout the year.
:
 Reviewer's Commentary
References
Aasen S (2008). Utholdenhet- trening som gir resultater. Akilles Forlag: Oslo, Norway
Acevedo EO, Goldfarb AH (1989). Increased training intensity effects on plasma lactate,
ventilatory threshold, and endurance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 21,
563-568
Achten J, Jeukendrup AE (2003). Maximal fat oxidation during exercise in trained men.
International Journal of Sports Medicine 24, 603-608
Ahmetov, II, Rogozkin VA (2009). Genes, Athlete Status and Training - An Overview.
Medicine and Sport Science 54, 43-71
Åstrand I, Åstrand PO, Christiensen EH, Hedman R (1960). Intermittent muscular work. Acta
Physiolologica Scandinavica 48, 448-453
Åstrand I ÅP, Christiansen EH, Hedman R (1960). Myohemoglobin as an oxygen store in man.
Acta Physiolologica Scandinavica 48, 454-460
Åstrand PO, Rodahl, K.R. (1986). Physical Training. In: Textbook of Work Physiology.
McGraw-Hill: Singapore. 412-476
Beneke R, von Duvillard SP (1996). Determination of maximal lactate steady state response in
selected sports events. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28, 241-246
Beneke R, Leithauser RM, Hutler M (2001). Dependence of the maximal lactate steady state on
the motor pattern of exercise. British Journal of Sports Medicine 35, 192-196
Berger NJ, Tolfrey K, Williams AG, Jones AM (2006). Influence of continuous and interval
training on oxygen uptake on-kinetics. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 38,
504-512
Bhambhani Y, Singh M (1985). The effects of three training intensities on VO2 max and
VE/VO2 ratio. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences 10, 44-51
Billat V, Lepretre PM, Heugas AM, Laurence MH, Salim D, Koralsztein JP (2003). Training
and bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female Kenyan runners. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise 35, 297-304; discussion 305-296
Billat VL, Flechet B, Petit B, Muriaux G, Koralsztein JP (1999). Interval training at VO2max:
effects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise 31, 156-163
Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP (2001). Physical and training
characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise 33, 2089-2097
Brigelius-Flohe R (2009). Commentary: oxidative stress reconsidered. Genes and Nutrition 4,
161-163
Catalucci D, Latronico MV, Ellingsen O, Condorelli G (2008). Physiological myocardial
hypertrophy: how and why? Frontiers in Bioscience 13, 312-324
Chakravarthy MV, Booth FW (2004). Eating, exercise, and "thrifty" genotypes: connecting the
dots toward an evolutionary understanding of modern chronic diseases. Journal of
Applied Physiology 96, 3-10
Christensen EH (1960). [Interval work and interval training.]. Internationale Zeitschrift fur
Angewandte Physiologie Einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 18, 345-356
Christensen EH, Hedman R, Saltin B (1960). Intermittant and continuous running. Acta
Physiolologica Scandinavica 50, 269-286
Cunningham DA, McCrimmon D, Vlach LF (1979). Cardiovascular response to interval and
continuous training in women. European Journal of Applied Physiology 41, 187-197
Daniels J, Scardina N (1984). Interval training and performance. Sports Medicine 1, 327-334
Daussin FN, Ponsot E, Dufour SP, Lonsdorfer-Wolf E, Doutreleau S, Geny B, Piquard F,
Richard R (2007). Improvement of VO2max by cardiac output and oxygen extraction
adaptation during intermittent versus continuous endurance training. European Journal of
Applied Physiology 101, 377-383
Daussin FN, Zoll J, Dufour SP, Ponsot E, Lonsdorfer-Wolf E, Doutreleau S, Mettauer B,
Piquard F, Geny B, Richard R (2008a). Effect of interval versus continuous training on
cardiorespiratory and mitochondrial functions: relationship to aerobic performance
:
 improvements in sedentary subjects. American Journal of Physiology 295, R264-272
Daussin FN, Zoll J, Ponsot E, Dufour SP, Doutreleau S, Lonsdorfer E, Ventura-Clapier R,
Mettauer B, Piquard F, Geny B, Richard R (2008b). Training at high exercise intensity
promotes qualitative adaptations of mitochondrial function in human skeletal muscle.
Journal of Applied Physiology 104, 1436-1441
Diaz F, Moraes CT (2008). Mitochondrial biogenesis and turnover. Cell Calcium 44, 24-35
Eddy DO, Sparks KL, Adelizi DA (1977). The effects of continuous and interval training in
women and men. European Journal of Applied Physiology 37, 83-92
Edge J, Bishop D, Goodman C (2006). The effects of training intensity on muscle buffer
capacity in females. European Journal of Applied Physiology 96, 97-105
Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, Foster C, Lucia A (2005). How do endurance runners
actually train? Relationship with competition performance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 37, 496-504
Esteve-Lanao J, Foster C, Seiler S, Lucia A (2007). Impact of training intensity distribution on
performance in endurance athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21,
943-949
Evertsen F, Medbo JI, Jebens E, Nicolaysen K (1997). Hard training for 5 mo increases Na(+)-
K+ pump concentration in skeletal muscle of cross-country skiers. American Journal of
Physiology 272, R1417-1424
Evertsen F, Medbo JI, Jebens E, Gjovaag TF (1999). Effect of training on the activity of five
muscle enzymes studied on elite cross-country skiers. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica
167, 247-257
Evertsen F, Medbo JI, Bonen A (2001). Effect of training intensity on muscle lactate
transporters and lactate threshold of cross-country skiers. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica
173, 195-205
Fields RD (2006). Nerve impulses regulate myelination through purinergic signalling. Novartis
Foundation Symposium 276, 148-158; discussion 158-161, 233-147, 275-181
Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS (2004). Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian
international rowers 1970-2001. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
14, 303-310
Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R (1996). Athletic performance in relation to
training load. Wisconsin Medical Journal 95, 370-374
Foster C (1998). Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 30, 1164-1168
Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, Gottschall L, Hrovatin LA, Parker S, Doleshal P, Dodge C
(2001a). A new approach to monitoring exercise training. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 15, 109-115
Foster C, Heiman KM, Esten PL, Brice G, Porcari J (2001b). Differences in perceptions of
training by coaches and athletes. South African Journal of Sports Medicine 8, 3-7
Foster C, Hoyos J, Earnest C, Lucia A (2005). Regulation of energy expenditure during
prolonged athletic competition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37, 670-675
Frank D, Kuhn C, Brors B, Hanselmann C, Ludde M, Katus HA, Frey N (2008). Gene
expression pattern in biomechanically stretched cardiomyocytes: evidence for a stretch-
specific gene program. Hypertension 51, 309-318
Fry AC, Schilling BK, Weiss LW, Chiu LZ (2006). beta2-Adrenergic receptor downregulation
and performance decrements during high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining.
Journal of Applied Physiology 101, 1664-1672
Gaskill SE, Serfass RC, Bacharach DW, Kelly JM (1999). Responses to training in cross-
country skiers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31, 1211-1217
Gladden LB (2004). Lactate metabolism: a new paradigm for the third millennium. Journal of
Physiology 558, 5-30
Gledhill N, Cox D, Jamnik R (1994). Endurance athletes' stroke volume does not plateau:
major advantage is diastolic function. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26,
1116-1121
Gomez-Cabrera MC, Domenech E, Romagnoli M, Arduini A, Borras C, Pallardo FV, Sastre J,
Vina J (2008). Oral administration of vitamin C decreases muscle mitochondrial
:
 biogenesis and hampers training-induced adaptations in endurance performance.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 87, 142-149
Gorostiaga EM, Walter CB, Foster C, Hickson RC (1991). Uniqueness of interval and
continuous training at the same maintained exercise intensity. European Journal of
Applied Physiology 63, 101-107
Gregory LW (1979). The development of aerobic capacity: a comparison of continuous and
interval training. Research Quarterly 50, 199-206
Gullich A, Emrich E, Seiler S (2009). Training methods and intensity distribution of young
world-class rowers. International Journal of Sport Physiology and Performance 4, In Press
Halson SL, Jeukendrup AE (2004). Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and
overtraining research. Sports Medicine 34, 967-981
Hansen AK, Fischer CP, Plomgaard P, Andersen JL, Saltin B, Pedersen BK (2005). Skeletal
muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once daily. Journal of
Applied Physiology 98, 93-99
Helgerud J, Hoydal K, Wang E, Karlsen T, Berg P, Bjerkaas M, Simonsen T, Helgesen C,
Hjorth N, Bach R, Hoff J (2007). Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more
than moderate training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 39, 665-671
Henriksson J, Reitman JS (1976). Quantitative measures of enzyme activities in type I and type
II muscle fibres of man after training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 97, 392-397
Hill AV, Long CNH, Lupton H (1924a). Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and
utilization of oxygen. Parts I-III. . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences 96, 438-475
Hill AV, Long CNH, Lupton H (1924b). Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and
utilization of oxygen. Parts IV-VI. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences 97, 84-138
Holloszy JO (2008). Regulation by exercise of skeletal muscle content of mitochondria and
GLUT4. Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 59 Suppl 7, 5-18
Hoppeler H, Klossner S, Fluck M (2007). Gene expression in working skeletal muscle.
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 618, 245-254
Ingham SA, Carter H, Whyte GP, Doust JH (2008). Physiological and performance effects of
low- versus mixed-intensity rowing training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
40, 579-584
Ishibashi T, Dakin KA, Stevens B, Lee PR, Kozlov SV, Stewart CL, Fields RD (2006).
Astrocytes promote myelination in response to electrical impulses. Neuron 49, 823-832
Joseph AM, Pilegaard H, Litvintsev A, Leick L, Hood DA (2006). Control of gene expression
and mitochondrial biogenesis in the muscular adaptation to endurance exercise. Essays in
Biochemistry 42, 13-29
Kamo M (2002). Discharge behavior of motor units in knee extensors during the initial stage of
constant-force isometric contraction at low force level. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 86, 375-381
Laughlin MH, Roseguini B (2008). Mechanisms for exercise training-induced increases in
skeletal muscle blood flow capacity: differences with interval sprint training versus
aerobic endurance training. Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 59 Suppl 7, 71-88
Lehmann MJ, Lormes W, Opitz-Gress A, Steinacker JM, Netzer N, Foster C, Gastmann U
(1997). Training and overtraining: an overview and experimental results in endurance
sports. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 37, 7-17
Lindsay FH, Hawley JA, Myburgh KH, Schomer HH, Noakes TD, Dennis SC (1996).
Improved athletic performance in highly trained cyclists after interval training. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise 28, 1427-1434
Lucia A, Hoyos J, Carvajal A, Chicharro JL (1999). Heart rate response to professional road
cycling: the Tour de France. International Journal of Sports Medicine 20, 167-172
Lucia A, Hoyos J, Santalla A, Earnest C, Chicharro JL (2003). Tour de France versus Vuelta a
Espana: which is harder? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 35, 872-878
MacDougall D, Sale D (1981). Continuous vs. interval training: a review for the athlete and the
coach. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences 6, 93-97
Marcuello A, Gonzalez-Alonso J, Calbet JA, Damsgaard R, Lopez-Perez MJ, Diez-Sanchez C
:
 (2005). Skeletal muscle mitochondrial DNA content in exercising humans. Journal of
Applied Physiology 99, 1372-1377
McConell GK, Lee-Young RS, Chen ZP, Stepto NK, Huynh NN, Stephens TJ, Canny BJ,
Kemp BE (2005). Short-term exercise training in humans reduces AMPK signalling
during prolonged exercise independent of muscle glycogen. Journal of Physiology 568,
665-676
McPhee JS, Williams AG, Stewart C, Baar K, Schindler JP, Aldred S, Maffulli N, Sargeant AJ,
Jones DA (2009). The training stimulus experienced by the leg muscles during cycling in
humans. Experimental Physiology 94, 684-694
Mujika I, Chatard JC, Busso T, Geyssant A, Barale F, Lacoste L (1995). Effects of training on
performance in competitive swimming. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 20, 395-
406
Nordsborg N, Bangsbo J, Pilegaard H (2003). Effect of high-intensity training on exercise-
induced gene expression specific to ion homeostasis and metabolism. Journal of Applied
Physiology 95, 1201-1206
Ojuka EO (2004). Role of calcium and AMP kinase in the regulation of mitochondrial
biogenesis and GLUT4 levels in muscle. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 275-278
Overend TJ, Paterson DH, Cunningham DA (1992). The effect of interval and continuous
training on the aerobic parameters. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences 17, 129-134
Pelliccia A, Culasso F, Di Paolo FM, Maron BJ (1999). Physiologic left ventricular cavity
dilatation in elite athletes. Annals of Internal Medicine 130, 23-31
Poole DC, Gaesser GA (1985). Response of ventilatory and lactate thresholds to continuous
and interval training. Journal of Applied Physiology 58, 1115-1121
Ristow M, Zarse K, Oberbach A, Kloting N, Birringer M, Kiehntopf M, Stumvoll M, Kahn CR,
Bluher M (2009). Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in
humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 106, 8665-8670
Robinson DM, Robinson SM, Hume PA, Hopkins WG (1991). Training intensity of elite male
distance runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23, 1078-1082
Saltin B, Nazar K, Costill DL, Stein E, Jansson E, Essen B, Gollnick D (1976). The nature of
the training response; peripheral and central adaptations of one-legged exercise. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica 96, 289-305
Schumacher YO, Mueller P (2002). The 4000-m team pursuit cycling world record: theoretical
and practical aspects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 34, 1029-1036
Seiler KS, Kjerland GO (2006). Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance
athletes: is there evidence for an "optimal" distribution? Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports 16, 49-56
Seiler S, Sjursen JE (2004). Effect of work duration on physiological and rating scale of
perceived exertion responses during self-paced interval training. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports 14, 318-325
Seiler S, Hetlelid KJ (2005). The impact of rest duration on work intensity and RPE during
interval training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37, 1601-1607
Seiler S, Haugen O, Kuffel E (2007). Autonomic recovery after exercise in trained athletes:
intensity and duration effects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 39, 1366-1373
Sheikh F, Raskin A, Chu PH, Lange S, Domenighetti AA, Zheng M, Liang X, Zhang T, Yajima
T, Gu Y, Dalton ND, Mahata SK, Dorn GW, 2nd, Heller-Brown J, Peterson KL, Omens
JH, McCulloch AD, Chen J (2008). An FHL1-containing complex within the
cardiomyocyte sarcomere mediates hypertrophic biomechanical stress responses in mice.
Journal of Clinical Investigation 118, 3870-3880
Steinacker JM, Lormes W, Lehmann M, Altenburg D (1998). Training of rowers before world
championships. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 30, 1158-1163
Stepto NK, Hawley JA, Dennis SC, Hopkins WG (1999). Effects of different interval-training
programs on cycling time-trial performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
31, 736-741
Talanian JL, Galloway SD, Heigenhauser GJ, Bonen A, Spriet LL (2007). Two weeks of high-
intensity aerobic interval training increases the capacity for fat oxidation during exercise
:
 in women. Journal of Applied Physiology 102, 1439-1447
Thompson P (2005). Break through the speed barrier with the "new interval training". Athletics
Weekly 59, 62-63
Wenger HA, Macnab RB (1975). Endurance training: the effects of intensity, total work,
duration and initial fitness. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 15, 199-211
Weston AR, Myburgh KH, Lindsay FH, Dennis SC, Noakes TD, Hawley JA (1997). Skeletal
muscle buffering capacity and endurance performance after high-intensity interval
training by well-trained cyclists. European Journal of Applied Physiology 75, 7-13
Wisloff U, Stoylen A, Loennechen JP, Bruvold M, Rognmo O, Haram PM, Tjonna AE,
Helgerud J, Slordahl SA, Lee SJ, Videm V, Bye A, Smith GL, Najjar SM, Ellingsen O,
Skjaerpe T (2007). Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus
moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation
115, 3086-3094
Yan Z (2009). Exercise, PGC-1alpha, and metabolic adaptation in skeletal muscle. Applied
Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 34, 424-427
Yeo WK, Paton CD, Garnham AP, Burke LM, Carey AL, Hawley JA (2008). Skeletal muscle
adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day
endurance training regimens. Journal of Applied Physiology 105, 1462-1470
Zapico AG, Calderon FJ, Benito PJ, Gonzalez CB, Parisi A, Pigozzi F, Di Salvo V (2007).
Evolution of physiological and haematological parameters with training load in elite male
road cyclists: a longitudinal study. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 47,
191-196
Zhou B, Conlee RK, Jensen R, Fellingham GW, George JD, Fisher AG (2001). Stroke volume
does not plateau during graded exercise in elite male distance runners. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise 33, 1849-1854

Published Nov 2009

©2009
: