Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17887811›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2007

Training to enhance the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance: can valid recommendations be given to runners and coaches based on current scientific knowledge?

Adrian W Midgley, Lars R McNaughton, Andrew M Jones

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 97 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Science advances · 2023
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adrian W MidgleyDepartment of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, England. A.W.Midgley@hull.ac.uk
Lars R McNaughton
Andrew M Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Anaerobic ThresholdAdaptation, PhysiologicalEnergy MetabolismHumansLactic AcidOxygen ConsumptionPhysical Education and TrainingPhysical EnduranceRunningLactic Acid

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.