4.2 Article

Case Study: Nutrition and Training Periodization in Three Elite Marathon Runners

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.22.5.392

关键词

TRIMP; carbohydrate and fluid; caffeine; endurance; performance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory-based studies demonstrate that fueling (carbohydrate; CHO) and fluid strategies can enhance training adaptations and race-day performance in endurance athletes. Thus, the aim of this case study was to characterize several periodized training and nutrition approaches leading to individualized race-day fluid and fueling plans for 3 elite male marathoners. The athletes kept detailed training logs on training volume, pace, and subjective ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) for each training session over 16 wk before race day. Training impulse/load calculations (TRIMP; min x RPE = load [arbitrary units; AU]) and 2 central nutritional techniques were implemented: periodic low-CHO-availability training and individualized CHO- and fluid-intake assessments. Athletes averaged similar to 13 training sessions per week for a total average training volume of 182 km/wk and peak volume of 231 km/wk. Weekly TRIMP peaked at 4,437 AU (Wk 9), with a low of 1,887 AU (Wk 16) and an average of 3,082 +/- 646 AU. Of the 606 total training sessions, similar to 74%, 11%, and 15% were completed at an intensity in Zone 1 (very easy to somewhat hard), Zone 2 (at lactate threshold) and Zone 3 (very hard to maximal), respectively. There were 2.5 +/- 2.3 low-CHO-availability training bouts per week. On race day athletes consumed 61 +/- 15 g CHO in 604 +/- 156 ml/hr (10.1% +/- 0.3% CHO solution) in the following format: similar to 15 g CHO in similar to 150 ml every 15 min of racing. Their resultant marathon times were 2:11:23, 2:12:39 (both personal bests), and 2:16:17 (a marathon debut). Taken together, these periodized training and nutrition approaches were successfully applied to elite marathoners in training and competition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据