Author(s): VANDERPOORTEN, R., BOONE, J., DE REU, M., VERMEIRE, K., Institution: GHENT UNIVERSITY, Country: BELGIUM, Abstract-ID: 1623

INTRODUCTION:
Participation in recreational marathon running continues to increase, yet detailed descriptions of training characteristics across performance levels remain limited. This study examined training volume, training intensity distribution (TID), training load (TL), and training load progression (TLP) in recreational marathon runners during the final 12 weeks preceding a marathon.
METHODS:
Part 1: General training data (n=182)
Twelve weeks of GPS-derived training data from 182 recreational runners were analyzed including, training frequency, running speed, distance, and session duration (age: 44.2 ± 10.0 y; running experience: 10.0 ± 9.8 y; body mass: 72.3 ± 10.9 kg). Runners were classified into five groups based on marathon finishing time, using 30-min intervals ranging from >4:30 h (group 1) to 2:30–3:00 h (group 5).
Part 2: TID (n=172)
CS was estimated from marathon performance using the linear regression model of Smyth and Muniz-Pumarez (2020), based on the percentage of CS sustained during the marathon.[1] Seven training zones were defined in 10% increments starting at 60-70% of CS (zone 1) up to 120-130% of CS (zone 7), and TID was expressed as percentage of time spent in each zone.
Part 3: TLP (n=146)
Weekly TL (arbitrary units), was calculated using the TRIMP-method applying zone-specific weighting factors (0.5 for zone 1 up to 12 for zone 7). TLP was then expressed as percentage change relative to the preceding week.
RESULTS:
Results
Part 1: Training frequency and weekly running volume were significantly lower in Groups 1–4 compared with Group 5 (4.0 ± 1.6 vs. 6.6 ± 3.6 sessions·wk⁻¹, p <0.001 ; 51.3 ± 28.7 vs. 82.7 ± 39.4 km·wk⁻¹ ; p <0.001). Mean session duration did not differ between groups (≈70–78 min·session⁻¹, p =0.331). however, Groups 1–3 completed fewer long runs ≥25 km (3.3 ± 2.3 vs. 5.6 ± 2.7, p =0.001) and ≥32 km (0.8 ± 1.1 vs. 2.0 ± 2.1, p =0.002) than Group 5.
Part 2:Groups 1–3 spent less training time in zone 2 than Groups 4–5 (≈17–21% vs. ≈27–33% , p <0.001) and more time in zone 4 (≈23–28% vs. ≈16–20%, p <0.001).
Part 3: On average TL increased linearly weekly with 7.86 ± 13.62% over all groups, with no differences between groups (p =0.95) .
CONCLUSION:
The faster marathon runners showed a higher weekly volume (km/week), training frequency, and completed more long runs. Additionally, slower groups spent more time in zones 3 and 4 while faster groups spent a larger proportion in zones 2 and 3. Finally, no differences in training load progression were found between the groups. These findings extend current knowledge by characterizing training patterns observed among faster and slower recreational marathon runners.

[1] Smyth, B., & Muniz-Pumares, D. (2020). Calculation of Critical Speed from Raw Training Data in Recreational Marathon Runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 52(12), 2637–2645.