Anchor baseline to current load, not peak
A training plan's starting volume should be anchored to the load the runner already tolerates - the plan's first-phase / week-1 volume - not to the peak or later weeks.
In plain English
Start a plan at the mileage you're already running, not the big number it builds to later. The plan's job is to grow you toward the peak, so week 1 should feel like a normal week, not a stretch.
Why it works
Tissue and aerobic adaptations accrue over weeks, and the planned progression is the intended driver of fitness, so the entry load only needs to match current capacity. Anchoring to peak would front-load a large jump (high acute:chronic ratio) and skip the adaptation the build is meant to deliver.
What it means in practice
Set recommendedStartingVolume to the plan's week-1 volume, and calibrate entry-bar prose ('you should already be running about X') to that same number, not to peak. In plan reviews, flag prose that tells a runner they only need a base well below week 1 (a hidden week-1 spike) and flag starting volumes set near the peak. Verify the ramp is feasible from the anchor, but do not raise the anchor to pre-cover later weeks.
The evidence
-
Both predefined and individualized training improved endurance performance, but individualized progression (scaled off each runner's measured baseline and adjusted by recovery/training status) tended to produce greater gains and a higher likelihood of high response. Illustrates anchoring entry load to current tolerated training rather than to a target peak.
n=30
-
Training was anchored to self-reported baseline and progressed in 4-week mesocycles (weeks 1-3 build, week 4 and week 8 repeat week-1 volume as recovery), tapering toward week-1 values at the end. Demonstrates baseline-anchored, percent-of-current progression. Protein supplementation showed no time-trial benefit.
-
Runners were not expected to start ready for the demanding later block - a preconditioning phase preceded it - and progression was structured in graded 4-week cycles off that base. No significant difference in injury risk between volume- and intensity-progression.
n=447
-
Recommends marathon plans run 16-20 weeks and begin only after a baseline ability to run at least 8 km several times per week; typical weekly training is 5-10 km runs 3-5 days/week plus one longer run over 10 km, increasing weekly mileage by no more than about 10 percent. States the entry bar as a current-fitness prerequisite distinct from peak.
-
Used a deliberate two-week familiarization/run-in before the real training block so runners entered rested and adapted - entry set to current readiness rather than dropping straight into peak-level loading. (Primary iron findings: iron stores and hepcidin fell over the training phase.)
-
Longer, disciplined tapers were associated with better marathon performance relative to predicted ability. Marathon performance also tracked closely with fastest 10 km pace from training (used as a fitness proxy), reinforcing that shorter hard efforts during the build provide useful fitness signals.
-
Several recommendations emerge with reasonable evidence for the recreational-runner population. (1) Combining HIIT (1-2 sessions per week) with continuous moderate- and low-intensity training improves performance more than either alone; SIT, aerobic HIIT, and short-interval HIIT all produce gains in 1.5 to 10 km performance over 4-10 week interventions. (2) Strength training improves running economy in runners of all levels and improves VO2max in novice runners over 6-14 weeks; benefits are less consistent in well-trained runners and one study found no benefit in recreational marathoners. (3) Polarized intensity distribution (~75-80% in Zone 1, 15-20% in Zone 3, little in Zone 2) outperformed a threshold-focused model in recreational runners' 10 km performance, but pyramidal distribution is also reasonable. The key practical principle: at least 75% of running time should be in Zone 1. (4) Periodized training (linear or reverse linear) outperforms non-periodized training; reverse linear may suit marathon and longer events better. (5) Race-time predictions from prior race performance over different distances are the most accurate method but provide no physiological insight. (6) Critique of common amateur practice: imitating elite training (high mileage, e.g., >70 km/wk) is associated with health problems; the '10% rule' for weekly load increases lacks robust support; commercial training algorithms (TrainingPeaks-style) often lack validation.
-
A complete training plan or exercise prescription is a complex, time-varying mix of interacting interventions (different exercises, intensities, durations, periodization phases, tapering, nutrition). It is virtually impossible to base every decision in such a plan on rigorous scientific evidence. The authors propose 'evidence-informed' as a more honest descriptor: some decisions (e.g., overall framework, key exercise selection) can draw on meta-analyses, while others (e.g., specific session-to-session adjustments, individual response to a given block) necessarily rely on practitioner judgment. They also emphasize that adaptation to a given training program is highly variable across individuals, which means individualization is itself part of evidence-informed practice. The framework explicitly accommodates an athlete-centered approach where the most theoretically optimal training is sometimes set aside if the athlete's preferences, life context, or psychological needs differ.
Why we call confidence high
Convergent across individualized endurance-training designs that scale the program off a measured baseline (Nuuttila 2022, Roberson 2018), staged designs that precondition before the specialized block (Ramskov 2018, Auersperger 2013), and clinical/marathon guidance (Vora 2018). Direction is robust; evidence is largely design-level and observational rather than RCTs isolating baseline-setting, so high not very-high.
Where it applies
Adult recreational and trained runners beginning a multi-week structured plan, across event distances.
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 2026-06-12. See how we score.