REF-814 · Midgley et al., 2007 · Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

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?

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

The review asks whether science can give valid training recommendations to long-distance runners on raising maximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold and running economy.

Relatively few training studies involve trained distance runners, and their design makes them hard to interpret: most added specific bouts to the runners' "normal training", which was usually not described; training status during the study was rarely reported; few had more than one experimental group; training load was not controlled; samples were small.

Knowledge from sedentary people is unlikely to transfer validly. The authors conclude that direct evidence is insufficient, but that worthwhile recommendations can still be formed by integrating training studies with knowledge of acute responses in the exercise domains, the limits on the physiological determinants, and the adaptations that improve them, and they urge caution.

Participants

No participants: critical narrative review. The number of studies appraised is not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Narrative appraisal of training studies in trained distance runners targeting maximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold and running economy, with a discussion of other sources of knowledge (acute physiology, limiting structures and processes, adaptations, molecular biology). No systematic search is described in the abstract.

Key Results

Relatively few training studies involve trained distance runners, and their methods often make interpretation difficult.
Main problem: interventions were usually added to "normal training" that was not described, and training status (e.g. off-season) was rarely reported, so training before and during the intervention cannot be compared.
Second problem: only a few studies had more than one experimental group, so the relative efficacy of an intervention cannot be judged.
Other problems: training load not controlled during the study; small samples with low statistical power.
Knowledge from sedentary individuals is unlikely to give valid recommendations for runners.
Authors' conclusion: there is insufficient direct scientific evidence to formulate training recommendations; worthwhile recommendations can still be made by integrating training studies with other physiological knowledge, and scientists should be cautious.

Practical Application

"Is there solid science on the best way to raise my maximal oxygen uptake, threshold and economy?" — this critical review of training studies in trained distance runners says no: too few studies, usually added on top of undescribed "normal training", mostly with one experimental group, uncontrolled load and small samples; advice has to combine the few studies with physiology, and should be given with caution.
When quoting a single training study to a runner, check what the rest of their training was and whether there was a comparison group; this review names those as the two biggest weaknesses of the field.
Do not transfer findings from untrained or sedentary people directly to trained runners.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: where later controlled evidence exists, cite it instead, for example the randomised intensity-distribution trial REF-509 and the strength-training reviews REF-072 and REF-801.

Limitations

Older narrative review; the evidence base has grown since, including randomised trials in trained runners.
The abstract gives no counts of studies and no specific recommendations.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

authoritative critical review including the Jones group; not systematic