Start at the mileage you already run, not the peak
Low confidence
Start a plan at about the mileage you already run, not the bigger number it builds to later. Week 1 should feel like a normal week, not a reach. This is expert guidance and common practice rather than a tested finding.
Why it works
Runs well past anything done recently are linked to more overuse injuries in one large cohort (single sessions more than 10 percent longer than the 30-day longest run). Anchoring week 1 at current load avoids building that kind of jump into the first week. Week-level ratios such as the acute-to-chronic workload ratio were not linked to injury in that cohort, so they do not justify the anchor.
What it means in practice
Set recommendedStartingVolume to the plan's week-1 volume, and write the entry bar to match ('you should already be running about X'), not the peak. In plan reviews, flag prose that tells a runner they only need a base well below week 1 (a hidden week-1 jump), and flag starting volumes set near the peak. Check that week 1's longest run is not far past the runner's recent longest run.
The evidence
-
This clinical guidance advises a 16-20 week marathon build, started only once a runner can already cover at least 8 km several times a week. Typical weeks run 5-10 km on 3-5 days plus one run over 10 km, with weekly mileage rising no more than about 10 percent. The entry bar sits at current fitness, not peak. As a narrative review it reflects expert consensus rather than trial data.
-
1820 of 5205 runners (35%) sustained a running-related injury. Single sessions longer than the longest run of the previous 30 days raised the overuse-injury rate for small (>10-30%), moderate (>30-100%) and large (>100%) spikes. The ACWR showed a negative dose-response and the week-to-week ratio showed no relationship with injury. The authors conclude that injury rate rose significantly once a single session exceeded the 30-day longest run by more than 10%.
n=5205
-
Each runner started from their self-reported baseline volume, then added about 5 to 10 percent a week. Progression ran in 4-week mesocycles: volume rose across the first 3 weeks, and the fourth week (weeks 4 and 8) repeated that mesocycle's first-week volume for recovery. Week 10 was a taper back to week-1 volume (about a 50% reduction). Protein supplementation showed no 5 km time-trial benefit over placebo (placebo improved 6.4%, protein 2.7%; interaction p = 0.080).
n=17
-
Run Clever randomized recreational runners to a schedule progressing either high-intensity running (88% VO2max or above) or total weekly volume; after an 8-week preconditioning phase, 447 runners entered the 16-week focused period (839 had started preconditioning, per the companion BMJ Open SEM 2018 paper), and 80 of them were injured (36 intensity, 44 volume). The intensity schedule did not raise the risk of hypothesized intensity-specific injuries (Achilles tendinopathy, gastrocnemius injuries, plantar fasciitis), and the volume schedule did not raise the risk of hypothesized volume-specific injuries (patellofemoral pain, iliotibial band syndrome, patellar tendinopathy); confidence intervals were wide (for example, -5.1%, 95% CI -16.5% to 6.3% at 16 weeks). The 4-week progression blocks (+23 percent in week 1, flat in weeks 2 and 3, -10 percent in week 4) come from the trial's 2016 design paper (BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:177) and the companion BMJ Open SEM 2018 paper. Many runners were censored before the focused period, which limits confidence in the null result.
n=447
-
Female runners did a two-week low-intensity run-in before the 8-week training block, so they started familiar with the procedures and in a non-fatigued state. The primary iron endpoints moved over the training phase: iron stores and hepcidin both fell and had not recovered after ten days, and iron deficiency rose from 7 of 14 runners at baseline to 10 of 14 after training.
n=14
-
A full training plan mixes many interacting, time-varying interventions (exercises, intensities, durations, periodization, taper, nutrition), so it is virtually impossible to ground every decision in scientific evidence. Wackerhage and Schoenfeld propose "evidence-informed" as the honest label: only some decisions are evidence-based (the choice of training and nutrition interventions is where that is most often possible), while others rest on personal experience, and the plan is re-adjusted subjectively when an individual does not respond. Because adaptation varies widely between people, testing and monitoring each individual is part of the practice. The framework is athlete-centered: an individual's needs and abilities are the main consideration, so the theoretically most effective form of training is sometimes set aside if the athlete has other wishes.
Why we call confidence low
Low: no study tests where to set starting volume. Expert marathon guidance sets the entry bar at current fitness (Vora 2018), and progressive-training trials start from participants' existing volume or a run-in block (Roberson 2018, Ramskov 2018, Auersperger 2013) as a design choice rather than a tested variable. A 5,205-runner cohort (Frandsen 2025) found single runs more than 10 percent longer than the longest run of the previous 30 days raised overuse-injury rates, which fits avoiding a week 1 far above recent running, but the same cohort found no injury link for week-to-week load ratios. Fredette's 2022 systematic review found evidence on recent training changes conflicting.
Where it applies
Adult recreational and trained runners starting a multi-week structured plan, at any race distance.
Does not apply to: true beginners starting from walk-run, where week 1 may be near-zero and 'current tolerated load' is the relevant anchor rather than a mileage number; elite athletes with bespoke coaching.
Last reviewed Oct 14, 2026. See how we score.