What Coaches Can Learn from the World’s Best Distance Runners
In our latest review, we explored what sets the world's best long-distance runners apart—not just their VO₂max or weekly mileage, but how they organised their training. This blog expands on that, drawing from the comprehensive review by Haugen et al. (2022), which integrated scientific research and the training logs of the world’s best athletes.
Key Takeaway 1
Why 80% of Training at Low Intensity is a Strategic Advantage
One of the most striking consistencies among world-class distance runners is their commitment to low-intensity training (LIT). Across continents, generations, and coaching philosophies, the data tells the same story: at least 80% of total running volume is performed at low intensity—defined physiologically as below the lactate threshold.
“The most consistent training intensity characteristic of elite distance runners is that most of the running distance (≥ 80%) is performed at low intensity throughout the training year...”
This is further supported by the strong correlation between total easy running mileage and performance. Of all training variables analysed, easy run volume showed the strongest correlation with long-distance performance—meaning more aerobic mileage consistently aligned with better results
For many coaches, especially those new to endurance sports or coming from more intensity-driven disciplines, this statistic can feel counterintuitive. After all, how can you race fast by training slow? But the answer lies in a deeper understanding of physiological adaptation, training load management, and what it actually takes to sustain elite performance over years, not just weeks.
The rationale for high volumes of low-intensity training (LIT) is built on physiology. LIT stimulates a wide array of peripheral adaptations: increased mitochondrial density, enhanced capillarisation, improved fat oxidation, and better autonomic control. It’s also relatively non-invasive, allowing for high frequency and long duration without incurring excessive fatigue.
In other words, LIT isn’t just easy—it’s foundational. It builds the metabolic machinery required to support higher intensities later, much like setting deep concrete footings before erecting a skyscraper.
“The accumulation of slow miles teaches the body how to go fast later.”
For coaches working with youth athletes in particular, this principle is gold. It challenges us to slow down our programming and be deliberate about aerobic development—especially in an era where short-term gains are often mistaken for long-term progress.
Volume ≠ Monotony: Variety Within the Easy
Critically, “easy” does not mean "boring" or “unstructured.” The study and elite training logs both show that LIT comes in many flavours: forest trails, uphill runs, strides at the end of long runs, progressive finishes. Elite runners often use these sessions to improve movement quality, reinforce technique, and fine-tune feel. And while the pace is low, the intention is high.
Encourage athletes to treat easy runs as technical rehearsals. Cadence, posture, and rhythm can all be sharpened when fatigue is low.
Training Chart for Distance Athletes
The table below summarises how elite distance runners distribute their weekly training across various intensity zones. Based on Haugen et al. (2022), it highlights the physiological targets, typical sessions, and approximate training volume for each zone—emphasising the strategic dominance of low-intensity running in world-class programs.
Use it as a reference to reflect on your own training distribution and whether it aligns with the principles proven to support performance, consistency, and longevity.
| Zone | Type | % HR Max | % VO₂max | Pace | Training | % Training Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LIT | 60–72% | 55–69% | Easy run pace | Warm-up, cooldown, aerobic easy runs | 60–70% |
| 2 | LIT | 73–82% | 70–79% | Long run / half marathon pace | Long runs, uphill runs, progressive aerobic runs | 15–25% |
| 3 | MIT | 83–87% | 80–84% | Tempo / 14–16 km pace | Threshold runs, fartlek, aerobic intervals | 5–10% |
| 4 | HIT | 88–92% | 85–89% | 5–10 km race pace | VO₂max intervals, hill reps, fast aerobic intervals | 3–5% |
| 5 | HIT | >93% | >90% | 3–5 km race pace | Race simulations, VO₂max intervals, competitions | 2–3% |
| 6 | HIT | n/a | n/a | Sprint / lactate tolerance | Lactate tolerance training, short hill reps | <1% |
| 7 | HIT | n/a | n/a | Max sprint / <200m | Maximal sprints, flying strides, neuromuscular drills | <1% |
Zones 1–2 (LIT): Together, these comprise ~80–90% of total running volume. They're the engine room of elite distance performance.
Zone 3 (MIT): Useful for developing lactate threshold and aerobic power, but dosage must be carefully controlled.
Zones 4–5 (HIT): High return but high cost. These sessions need full recovery and intelligent sequencing.
Zones 6–7: Small in volume but strategically used to maintain stride mechanics, force production, and neuromuscular efficiency during high-mileage periods.
Key Takeaway 2
Periodisation Must Be Personalised, Not Prescribed
If low-intensity volume is the engine of endurance performance, then periodisation is the navigation system. It’s the structured sequencing of training variables—intensity, volume, frequency, and specificity—across time to optimise an athlete’s readiness for competition. But, as Haugen et al. (2022) and countless training logs reveal, there’s no single map to follow. Periodisation isn’t prescriptive; it’s responsive.
The best distance coaches don’t follow a rigid plan—they follow a clear purpose.
Photo Credit: Marathon Photos
One Framework, Many Variations
While world-class distance runners span continents, cultures, and climates, their training structures tend to orbit a similar seasonal rhythm. This high-level structure, often referred to in classical periodisation models, comprises four distinct but interconnected phases:
A general preparation phase, where volume is high, intensity is low, and the foundation is laid.
A specific preparation phase, where workouts begin to target the demands of the event.
A competition phase, where precision, recovery, and readiness come to the fore.
A transition phase, where structured rest facilitates physical and mental regeneration.
At a glance, it appears systematic—and it is. But the artistry of endurance coaching lies in how this framework is adapted, stretched, and reassembled to suit the athlete in front of you. For example:
A 5000m track runner might target the Australian Athletics Championship. Winter months feature tempo runs, aerobic intervals, and strength development. Around 12–16 weeks from the championship, training shifts toward track-specific sessions—repetitions at race pace, race simulation blocks, and sharper anaerobic efforts. A 2–3 week taper precedes the championship.
An elite marathoner might target two major races per year. Their preparation may stretch across 16–20 weeks, centred on marathon-pace long runs, moderate threshold sessions, and economy-building volume. The taper is often longer (up to 3 weeks), and there is a greater emphasis on fueling strategies and musculoskeletal resilience.
Training Age and Specificity
When we talk about periodisation, it’s tempting to focus on the training blocks, rep schemes, and taper strategies. But before any of that matters, we must ask a fundamental question: how long has the athlete been training seriously for their event? This is what we mean by training age—and it’s arguably the most important variable many coaches overlook when applying periodisation models.
“Most world-class long-distance runners engage in systematic training for 8–10 years prior to reaching a high international standard...”
In the Haugen et al. review, the world’s best runners show training structures that appear similar on the surface—seasonal progression, specificity toward competition, strategic tapers. But beneath that, there's a clear underpinning: these athletes have earned the right to train this way through years of consistent aerobic development, robust biomechanical patterns, and psychological maturity.
Tap the tiles below to look at how training may evolve based on an athlete’s training age.
-
For athletes with a low training age—think juniors, late specialisers, or those returning from long breaks—the priority is not hyper-specific intervals or fine-tuned tapers. It’s exposure, variety, and resilience.
These athletes benefit most from:
High volumes of low-intensity running.
A range of movement patterns (hill work, strides, drills, alternative surfaces).
A balanced distribution of intensities—not polarised so much as exploratory.
-
As training age increases, so too does an athlete’s capacity for stress and structure. This is where classic periodisation strategies become more useful. Athletes can begin:
Structuring mesocycles with distinct goals (e.g., aerobic development, threshold focus).
Introducing race-specific sessions and distances.
Managing cumulative fatigue and recovery proactively.
Still, coaches must tread carefully. These athletes are often still in education, exploring event specialisation, and managing competing demands. Periodisation must remain fluid, not force-fed.
-
For seasoned athletes—those with five to ten years of consistent training—the training load can shift towards precision. These athletes have likely developed:
A durable aerobic base.
Efficient biomechanics under fatigue.
Mental strategies for performance pacing and effort regulation.
At this level, specificity becomes not just appropriate—it becomes essential. But it’s also finely tuned. Sessions simulate the exact pace, conditions, and metabolic stress of racing. Volume is carefully calibrated to allow peak performance at just the right moment.
The key message for coaches is this: a well-planned program must reflect where the athlete is on their developmental journey, not where you want them to be.
Don't rush specificity in young athletes.
Don't over-simplify general work for experienced athletes.
And don’t forget: training age isn’t the same as biological age. A 17-year-old who’s trained smart for 5 years may tolerate more than a 23-year-old beginner.
Reflection: How Would You Periodise These Athletes?
The athletes below differ in age, experience, event, and context. Your challenge: consider how you would structure their preparation across a season.
Each case study represents a common coaching scenario. Tap the cards to see a suggested approach—then ask yourself: “Would I do it differently based on my coaching environment or philosophy?”
Tap to view periodisation plan →
Recommended Periodisation:
- Weeks 1–4: Build general aerobic base through LIT, strides, and running drills.
- Weeks 5–8: Add threshold work and short hills for strength and rhythm.
- Weeks 9–11: Focus on 1500m-specific sessions (e.g., 200s/400s at race pace).
- Week 12: Taper with lower volume, maintain sharpness with strides and short intervals.
Prioritise movement quality, enjoyment, and aerobic resilience over intensity.
Tap to view periodisation plan →
Recommended Periodisation:
- Weeks 1–3: Gradual reintroduction of volume using doubles, soft surfaces, and cross-training.
- Weeks 4–8: Establish weekly rhythm (e.g., long run, threshold session, 2–3 aerobic days).
- Weeks 9–12: Introduce race-pace intervals (e.g., 5–8 km worth of work at half pace).
Use weekly check-ins for load tolerance. Prioritise progressive loading over speed.
Tap to view periodisation plan →
Recommended Periodisation:
- Base (Weeks 1–6): High mileage with moderate intensity, aerobic thresholds, and long aerobic builds.
- Specific Prep (Weeks 7–14): Long marathon-pace intervals (e.g., 3x6 km at MP), nutrition practice, sharpening long runs.
- Peak & Taper (Weeks 15–18): Reduce volume, keep marathon-pace touchpoints, short VO₂ efforts for freshness.
Schedule weekly massage, monitor HRV, and use back-to-back long sessions sparingly.
Key Takeaway 3
Smart Load Management is a Competitive Advantage
Elite distance runners don’t just train a lot—they train in a way that their bodies can handle a lot. Smart load management is what allows them to show up healthy, week after week, year after year. As a coach, the real question isn’t “How much can my athlete handle today?” but “How do I help them handle more tomorrow—without breaking down?”
Arguably, the most important answer to this question is that volume builds slowly, often with weekly increments of just 5 to 12.5 km in total running mileage. This progressive overload strategy isn’t just a safety net against injury—it’s the very process that allows consistent adaptation over time.
Training weeks revolve around key sessions—usually a long run and a quality interval or threshold workout. Everything else supports recovery and readiness for those ‘big rocks’.
Down (recovery) weeks are deliberately inserted to consolidate gains and reduce accumulated fatigue. These aren’t just a rest, they’re a performance tool. Inserted every 3–4 weeks, they allow adaptations to consolidate, prevent monotony, and reduce overuse risk.
Tapers aren’t just reduced mileage—they’re rehearsed, athlete-specific strategies to maintain sharpness while reducing fatigue. Great coaches plan the taper backward from race day, not as an afterthought.
The Tools of Smart Training: Terrain, Doubles, and Surfaces
Volume alone doesn’t tell the full story. How that volume is accumulated matters. The Haugen et al. paper highlights several strategies elite runners use to support high workloads while mitigating biomechanical and metabolic strain:
Double Runs: Many athletes split daily volume into two sessions. This allows increased mileage without the hormonal and neuromuscular load of longer single runs.
Soft Surfaces: Training on trails, grass, and dirt tracks helps reduce cumulative impact, particularly for easy runs. It’s not just joint protection—it’s about preserving form and function over time.
Alternating Intensities: Even within the same week, high-load days are often followed by true recovery runs or non-impact cross-training. This creates a rhythm of stress and recovery that promotes sustained performance.
“Many long-distance runners accumulate much of their running kilometers on dirt roads/forest paths instead of paved roads to reduce mechanical loading and maximize training volume... world-leading athletes seem to compensate [for lower overall duration] by running twice a day most of the week.”
Case Study: Eliud Kipchoge – The King of Consistency
Perhaps no modern athlete exemplified this principle better than Eliud Kipchoge. While the headlines focus on his 30–40 km long runs and stoic threshold workouts, the success of his program lied in the sensible progression.
He began each season with controlled aerobic work.
Volume and intensity built methodically over months, not weeks.
Recovery runs were truly easy. No ego. No need to prove anything in training.
Eliud Kipchoge’s Weekly Training Overview
Compare his General and Specific Preparation Phases.
M = Morning session, E = Evening session. Intensity Zones: Z1 = Easy/LIT, Z2 = Moderate/MIT, Z3+ = Hard/HIT
Monday
M: 16–21 km @ 3:50–4:00 (Z1)
E: 8–12 km @ 4:30–5:00 (Z1)
Tuesday
Intervals: 15×1k @ 2:50–2:55 (Z4)
Wednesday
M: 16–21 km @ 3:50–4:00 (Z1)
E: 8–10 km @ 4:30–5:00 (Z1)
Thursday
Long: 30–40 km @ 3:00–3:25 (Z2–3)
E: 8–12 km @ 4:30–5:00 (Z1)
Friday
M: 16–21 km @ 3:50–4:00 (Z1)
E: 8–12 km @ 4:30–5:00 (Z1)
Saturday
Fartlek 12–15 km (Z1–3)
E: 8–12 km easy (Z1)
Sunday
M: 18–22 km @ 3:50–4:00 (Z1)
E: Rest
Monday
M: 21 km @ 3:20 (Z2)
E: 10 km @ 4:00 (Z1)
Tuesday
Mixed: 3k WU + 5×1k (Z3) + 3×300 (Z5) + 2×200 (Z5)
Wednesday
M: 18 km @ 3:55–4:00 (Z1)
E: 11 km @ 4:00 (Z1)
Thursday
M: 40 km tempo ~3:40 (Z1)
E: Rest
Friday
M: 18 km @ 3:50–3:55 (Z1)
E: 10 km @ ~3:55 (Z1)
Saturday
Fartlek: 30×1 min @ 2:45 (Z4) + 15 min CD (Z1)
Sunday
M: 20 km @ ~3:50 (Z1)
E: Rest
General Prep Weekly Summary:
200–220 km (82–84% LIT, 9–10% MIT, 7–8% HIT)
Specific Prep Weekly Summary:
~185 km (~91% LIT, ~3% MIT, ~6% HIT)
To sum up, world-class distance runners don’t chase intensity for its own sake; they masterfully balance high volumes of low-intensity work, tailor periodisation to the individual, and apply progressive loading with surgical precision.
Whether building the aerobic engine through 80–90% LIT, adapting training cycles based on experience and event, or manipulating surfaces, session types, and weekly rhythms, the best athletes in the world train with patience and purpose. For coaches, the lesson is clear: long-term performance comes not from complexity, but from consistency, clarity, and individualisation.
