↓ Skip to main content

Training to Enhance the Physiological Determinants of Long-Distance Running Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
648 Mendeley
Title
Training to Enhance the Physiological Determinants of Long-Distance Running Performance
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200737100-00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian W. Midgley, Lars R. McNaughton, Andrew M. Jones

Abstract

This article investigates whether there is currently sufficient scientific knowledge for scientists to be able to give valid training recommendations to long-distance runners and their coaches on how to most effectively enhance the maximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold and running economy. Relatively few training studies involving trained distance runners have been conducted, and these studies have often included methodological factors that make interpretation of the findings difficult. For example, the basis of most of the studies was to include one or more specific bouts of training in addition to the runners' 'normal training', which was typically not described or only briefly described. The training status of the runners (e.g. off-season) during the study period was also typically not described. This inability to compare the runners' training before and during the training intervention period is probably the main factor that hinders the interpretation of previous training studies. Arguably, the second greatest limitation is that only a few of the studies included more than one experimental group. Consequently, there is no comparison to allow the evaluation of the relative efficacy of the particular training intervention. Other factors include not controlling the runners' training load during the study period, and employing small sample sizes that result in low statistical power. Much of the current knowledge relating to chronic adaptive responses to physical training has come from studies using sedentary individuals; however, directly applying this knowledge to formulate training recommendations for runners is unlikely to be valid. Therefore, it would be difficult to argue against the view that there is insufficient direct scientific evidence to formulate training recommendations based on the limited research. Although direct scientific evidence is limited, we believe that scientists can still formulate worthwhile training recommendations by integrating the information derived from training studies with other scientific knowledge. This knowledge includes the acute physiological responses in the various exercise domains, the structures and processes that limit the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance, and the adaptations associated with their enhancement. In the future, molecular biology may make an increasing contribution in identifying effective training methods, by identifying the genes that contribute to the variation in maximal oxygen uptake, the lactate threshold and running economy, as well as the biochemical and mechanical signals that induce these genes. Scientists should be cautious when giving training recommendations to runners and coaches based on the limited available scientific knowledge. This limited knowledge highlights that characterising the most effective training methods for long-distance runners is still a fruitful area for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 648 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 8 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 8 1%
Unknown 612 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 126 19%
Student > Bachelor 123 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 11%
Researcher 44 7%
Other 36 6%
Other 138 21%
Unknown 112 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 338 52%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 7%
Social Sciences 18 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 2%
Other 53 8%
Unknown 124 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 144. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2024.
All research outputs
#289,459
of 25,519,924 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#274
of 2,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,478
of 191,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#26
of 786 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,519,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 786 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.