Training
Methods, nutrition and practical calculations.
Training methods
Three sports, different levels: intensity distribution, training models and individual sessions are not equivalent labels.
Running: intensity distribution Running / pyramidal and polarized
Intensity distribution means how much running time falls below the first threshold, between the two thresholds and above the second. Pyramidal: the middle zone exceeds the high zone. Polarized: the high zone exceeds the middle zone. Both keep most running easy.
In running, the same session can be classified differently depending on whether you use pace, heart rate or lactate. Before comparing two weeks or two plans, state which measure you use and how thresholds are set. Watch zones do not necessarily match physiological thresholds.
The 2025 meta-analysis pooled 13 studies with 348 endurance athletes, recreational and competitive. The studies are not running only, and it gives no separate result for running. Using time in heart-rate zone, it found no overall difference between polarized and pyramidal for VO₂max and time trial. It reports a possible difference by level: more competitive, polarized; recreational, pyramidal. This is a subgroup, not an individual rule.
Application: measure time in zones with the same method for a few weeks, then decide whether the middle zone is intended. Do not add hard sessions just to reach a percentage.
The Norwegian model Running / lactate-guided threshold model
Here the name refers to the model described by Casado et al.2023: lactate-guided threshold intervals within a high volume of easy running. Double threshold is one practice reported in some elite runners, not a universal definition of Norwegian training.
The 2023 paper described observations in world-class runners. A 2024 controlled study in 14 trained men later compared the acute responses to one 6×10-minute session and two 3×10-minute sessions separated by 6.5 hours: it does not measure improvements after months. A 2026 NIH communication reports a project in 25 well-trained recreational runners with two 14-day periods and more volume in double threshold; it is not treated here as a full scientific paper. These data do not establish superiority for the marathon or for every recreational runner.
Understand intensity control and load management rather than copying elite volumes or double sessions. Do not infer individual thresholds from one universal lactate value. This is not a recommendation to change your plan.
Running: systems described by coaches Running / Daniels, Lydiard, Hansons, Pfitzinger, MAF
Five different systems, each with a source and limits: Daniels (five intensities tied to VDOT), Lydiard (phases with aerobic base and hills), Hansons (marathon with accumulated fatigue and a 16-mile long run), Pfitzinger (18-week marathon plan), Maffetone (MAF heart rate).
They are not variants of the same method and should not be merged into one plan. They are described by the authors or by articles about them: none has been evaluated in a controlled study.
Each sheet gives the structure, a clearly illustrative example and the limits of the source.
Running: strength and plyometrics Running / strength for running
In middle- and long-distance runners, strength tends to improve running economy (Blagrove 2018: generally 2–8% versus controls), while VO₂max and lactate threshold generally do not change.
Methods are not equivalent: in the Llanos-Lagos 2024 review, heavy loads (at least 80% of 1RM), plyometrics and combined methods showed small to moderate effects; submaximal loads and isometrics did not. Certainty of evidence is moderate or low.
The article gives the method families, the ranges of the studied protocols (not a plan) and the limits.
Cycling: intensity distribution Cycling / pyramidal and polarized
On the bike, zones are usually set from power, often starting from FTP. Pyramidal and polarized describe how time is split across the three zones; both keep most hours easy.
The 2025 meta-analysis (13 studies, 348 endurance athletes across sports, not only cyclists) classified work by time in heart-rate zone. A power- or FTP-based classification can give a different distribution and should not be compared as equal without saying so. No overall difference in VO₂max and time trial; a possible difference by level (competitive: polarized; recreational: pyramidal).
Application: decide first how zones are measured (power, heart rate, perception), then count time with that method. Do not copy a percentage.
Cycling: sweet spot and intervals Cycling / sweet spot, VO₂max intervals
Two separate sheets. Sweet spot (88–94% of FTP) is a coaching convention, not a measured threshold. VO₂max intervals come in two families, short and long, with a study of well-trained cyclists.
Both are about the bike and do not apply to running. Neither is a plan: they are descriptions with evidence and limits.
Cycling: FTP, zones and sessions Cycling / tests and organization
FTP tests support estimation and monitoring; they do not define a training intensity distribution. The existing guide explains the limitations and repeatability of the test.
Separate the measure (power, perceived effort, thresholds), the overall distribution and the individual session. Continuous or interval work can appear in different programs. A session name alone does not establish a suitable load.
Friel’s manual below offers a coaching framework for season planning, not experimental proof of every choice.
Cycling: heavy strength Cycling / strength for cycling
In endurance cyclists the 2025 meta-analysis (17 studies, 262 cyclists) found effects of heavy strength (at least 80% of 1RM) on cycling efficiency, anaerobic power and performance. No significant effect on VO₂max.
For other methods (plyometrics, moderate loads) the sources read give no synthesis in cyclists, so they are not compared. The Rønnestad 2010 protocol (12 weeks, 2 sessions a week, 4 leg exercises, 3 sets of 4–10 RM) is an example tested on 11 male cyclists, not a plan.
Strength, size and power Weights / goals and variables
Maximal strength measures how much force can be produced, hypertrophy changes in muscle size, and power how quickly work is done. Muscular endurance concerns sustaining repetitions or force over time. Improving one outcome does not automatically demonstrate improvement in the others or in race time.
The 2026 ACSM position stand synthesizes 137 reviews of trials in healthy adults, with interventions lasting 6–52 weeks. Much of the evidence concerns people with little resistance-training experience. It is not a guide to rehabilitation, pain management or a specific endurance event.
For strength, comparisons favor loads of at least 80% of 1RM, 2–3 sets, at least two weekly sessions, full range of motion and priority work early in the session. These variables are associated with larger gains in the syntheses, not a requirement to start heavy. A hypothetical 100 kg 1RM gives 80 kg at 80%: this is only percentage arithmetic, not selection of a safe load or a guaranteed repetition count.
For hypertrophy, volumes of at least 10 sets per muscle group per week are associated with greater gains. Volume and frequency are different. Counting example: 5 sets on Monday + 5 on Thursday = 10 weekly sets for the muscle group concerned. This is arithmetic, not a routine; it does not establish that indirect contributions from different exercises always count as a full set, or that 10 is the minimum needed to improve.
For power, the synthesis favors moderate loads (30–70% of 1RM), a fast concentric intent and low-to-moderate volume. Example: 3 sets of 4 reps = 12 repetitions; 4 sets of 6 = 24. Equal repetition totals do not make exercises, velocity or fatigue equivalent. This does not recommend Olympic-style lifts without technical preparation.
For muscular endurance, resistance training improves outcomes compared with no training, but the synthesis does not provide enough evidence to select a superior dose for everyone. A circuit of 20 repetitions does not automatically become a method for improving a marathon or granfondo.
Failure, equipment, set structure and periodization do not consistently change all outcomes in the evidence considered. This does not make them irrelevant to technique, comfort, fatigue management or adherence. Record sets, reps, load, rest and symptoms to understand what changed; do not add sets just to reach a numerical threshold.
In weight training, pyramidal often describes a sequence of loads and repetitions; drop sets, clusters and circuits describe set structures. These are not running or cycling intensity distributions and should not be presented as equivalent methods. Open STRENGTH for author programs and variants, and sport-specific running, cycling and swimming guides for race transfer.
Strength and endurance together Weights / integration with endurance
The Schumann et al. review, published online in 2021 and in the 2022 volume, includes 43 studies and 1,090 participants. It compares at least four weeks of strength plus aerobic training with the same strength prescription without aerobic work. It does not compare any arbitrary pair of weekly plans.
Overall, there is no significant difference in maximal strength or hypertrophy. Explosive-strength gains are attenuated: SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval −0.48 to −0.08. SMD is a standardized difference, not a 28% performance loss or a number of race seconds.
The subgroup training both modes in the same session (at most 20 minutes apart) shows attenuated explosive-strength gains. This is not significant when modes are separated by at least 3 hours. It does not prove that 3 hours is a sharp biological threshold or a recovery guarantee for every athlete. Subgroups are not a direct trial of every possible separation interval.
Calendar-reading example only: cycling ends at 08:00 and weights start at 11:00, giving 3 hours of separation. This does not establish recovery or prescribe volume. For a power goal, separation is one factor to consider alongside the quality and load of both activities.
Average study quality is moderate. Aerobic intensity is not analyzed reliably because reporting is inconsistent. The active subgroup mixes training levels, so identical findings in novices and elite athletes are not established. No significant differences between running and cycling or age groups does not prove equivalence.
This synthesis concerns muscle outcomes; by itself it does not establish improvements in VO₂max, marathon, swimming or triathlon performance. Sport-specific guides separate loads, populations and results. Do not label all fatigue as generic interference or treat concurrent training as an automatically generated week.
Nutrition
Foods grouped by their practical role, with mixed foods kept visible. A starting guide, not a complete food database.
Carbohydrate sources Foods / reading guide
Start from cereals and derivatives, bread, pasta, rice and potatoes; fruit also contributes carbohydrate. Food groups are a practical index, not a claim that each food contains only one nutrient. Check the exact food in the CREA database.
Always identify raw or cooked state, edible portion and the unit. Per 100 g is not per serving; water gain during cooking changes concentration. The source gives reference averages, not exact values for every plate.
CREA example per 100 g edible portion: Semolina pasta, uncooked. Available carbohydrate 72.7 g, protein 13.5 g, fat 1.2 g. This is not a serving recommendation.
Protein sources Foods / reading guide
Explore fish, meat, eggs, milk and yogurt, and legumes as practical protein-source categories. Fat content and other nutrients vary with the specific food. Legumes also contribute carbohydrate: they should appear in both relevant views.
A food table is not a protein prescription. Portion choices and total diet need context; no automatic meal plan is generated here.
CREA example per 100 g edible portion: Chicken breast, raw. Available carbohydrate 0 g, protein 23.3 g, fat 0.8 g. This is not a serving recommendation.
Fat sources and mixed foods Foods / reading guide
Oils, nuts and oilseeds are practical entries for fat sources. Nuts, dairy, eggs, legumes and recipes can contribute several macronutrients. Classification is a navigation aid, not a purity label.
For packaged products, use the actual label rather than replacing it with a generic food average. No specific product has been tested for this collection.
CREA example per 100 g edible portion: Extra virgin olive oil. Available carbohydrate 0 g, protein 0 g, fat 99.9 g. This is not a serving recommendation.
Supplements
Three separate questions: does it work for this goal, is it safe for this person, and is the product permitted and checked?
How to read evidence Evidence / safety / contamination
The AIS framework considers safety, permission in sport and effectiveness separately. A useful ingredient is not a guarantee for every brand or batch. The framework is designed for high-performance sport; application to an amateur still needs context.
Unintentional ingestion of prohibited substances is a known risk. No product or batch is certified by this site. Check current anti-doping rules and documented batch testing with qualified support; marketing claims are not verification.
Caffeine, creatine, nitrate and buffering agents Ingredient-level evidence, not a shopping list
The IOC consensus summarized by AIS identifies evidence of benefit for some ingredients, including caffeine, creatine, specific buffering agents and nitrate. Benefit depends on the event and use scenario; these are not interchangeable aids.
AIS lists caffeine, beta-alanine, nitrate, bicarbonate and creatine in its GroupA resources. This does not mean everyone needs them. Dose, formulation, side effects, interactions and the specific goal must be checked before use. This index does not provide a stack or individual dose.
Creatine Strength and short intense efforts
Creatine monohydrate has solid evidence for repeated short intense efforts and for strength-training adaptations (lean mass, strength, power). For long running, cycling and swimming races it is not its field, and it can raise body mass.
Among the side effects reported in the sources read, the only consistent one is weight gain; this is not a guarantee of safety. With health conditions or medicines, see a doctor. No dose given.
Beta-alanine Efforts of 1 to 10 minutes
It raises carnosine in muscle and needs daily use for weeks. The effect is small (meta-analysis of 40 studies: 0.18) and clearer for efforts of 1-4 minutes. Reported side effect: tingling.
For strength and for endurance beyond 25 minutes more studies are needed.
Vitamins and minerals After an assessment, not to improve
Vitamin D, iron, calcium, B12 and vitamins C and E are not ergogenic aids: supplementing makes sense to correct a deficiency or for a specific risk (diet, season, losses), after an assessment. High doses of single antioxidants may blunt training adaptations.
No dose given: tests and a doctor or sports dietitian are needed.
Protein and EAA Strength and recovery
A protein supplement is a practical way to raise total protein intake. In a meta-analysis of 49 studies the average effect on strength and lean mass is small and falls with age. For endurance, carbohydrate comes first. No dose given.
Electrolytes and sodium Long races, heat
The best-documented race risk is drinking more than you lose (exercise-associated hyponatremia), not missing sodium. ACSM: individual plans based on sweat rate. No brands or sodium amounts given.
Magnesium, zinc and omega-3 Limited evidence
For performance the evidence is limited. Magnesium and cramps: no significant difference from placebo in older adults (Cochrane 2020). Omega-3: no benefit on strength and hypertrophy beyond training, some effect on delayed-onset soreness. No dose given.
Sports foods and medical supplements Different purposes
Drinks, gels and protein products can offer convenience when ordinary foods are impractical. They do not automatically improve an already adequate diet. Medical supplements for a suspected deficiency need assessment rather than self-diagnosis.
Begin with food, nutritional assessment and the training demand. No supplement corrects an unsuitable workload or substitutes medical care.
Calculators
Choose a calculation. Your inputs stay on your device.
Marathon splits
Even-pace split times, to print or copy onto a wrist band.
4:59/km
Training paces
Paces as a percentage of marathon speed, the approach used by many coaches of the Italian school and by John Davis. They are a starting point: adjust to how you feel.
Race-day carbohydrate
Based on American College of Sports Medicine guidelines and Asker Jeukendrup's research. Read the article
Check the label
Daily macros, carb load and carb cycling
Educational ranges, not a personal diet. Daily macros, loading and matching carbohydrate intake to training are distinct modes. No data leaves this page.
Method, limits and sources
Daily carbohydrate ranges:3–5,5–7,6–10 and 8–12 g/kg/day according to training demand. Protein reference 1.2–2.0 g/kg/day. These are broad guideline ranges for athletes, not exact requirements inferred from body mass alone.
Carbohydrate loading:10–12 g/kg per 24 hours during the 36–48 hours before sustained events longer than 90 minutes. Do not add this on top of the daily target or confuse it with grams per hour during racing. Tolerance and total energy need professional planning.
Carb cycling here means adjusting the daily range to training demand. It is not a fixed high/low-day diet or deliberate glycogen-depletion protocol. The 2021 meta-analysis on periodized carbohydrate restriction found no overall endurance-performance advantage in well-trained athletes; it does not disprove every individualized fueling strategy.
Optional fat arithmetic uses 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate and protein,9 kcal/g for fat. It is a conventional approximation, not a food-composition database. No resting-metabolic-rate or calorie-needs formula is used. A missing or incompatible energy target does not trigger automatic food restriction.
Books and method
Coaching manuals are separate from research evidence. Author, edition and purpose are explicit.
Daniels’ Running Formula · Jack Daniels Running / 4 th edition
Human Kinetics publisher page verifies title, author and fourth edition. Covers the VDOT system and event-specific training. A coaching framework, not a systematic review. The full book was not consulted for this summary; no page quotations are claimed.
The Cyclist’s Training Bible · Joe Friel Cycling / 5 th edition,2018
The author’s page verifies this fifth edition, VeloPress,2018. A manual for season planning and individualized training. This verifies one edition, not a claim that it is the latest. Full text not consulted; no page quotations.
Science and Practice of Strength Training Weights / Zatsiorsky, Kraemer, Fry
Third edition, Human Kinetics,2021. Publisher-verified authors and edition. Technical principles and methods, to read alongside current research. Full text not consulted for this collection; no internal quotations or page references.