Miles of
Meaning.
NL
Settings

Preferences

Saved on this device. Changes apply immediately.

Reading
All settings →

Source audit, 21 September: retrieval level and evidence strength are separate. Health review remains outstanding. Check each item’s verification status.

Evidence behind the plan

Research reviewed: 21 September 2026Site published: 21 September 2026Protocol: v1.2 · 28 August 2026

Traceability to the existing protocol, not a new literature review. Confidence applies to the principle; exact doses may be practical defaults.

Relatively robust; exact split is a practical default

Aerobic training and intensity

Training-intensity distribution supports endurance development. The evidence does not establish a universal polarized-versus-pyramidal winner. The 80–90% easy target and one-quality-session week are working defaults, not an individually proven optimum.

Full rationale and implementation

Evidence supports benefits; review quality varies

Strength and economy

Reviews support strength training for running economy and performance, without requiring a VO₂max increase. The exact lifting schedule, stride count and plyometric dose are implementation choices and must fit tolerance. The umbrella review found important methodological weaknesses in many included reviews.

Full rationale and implementation

Practical framework; limited direct 100K trials

Long runs, terrain and progression

Race-specific exposure has physiological and practical rationale. Muscle damage as the main ultra limiter is an expert hypothesis. The 3–5-hour range, four-week loop and downhill minute progression are adjustable defaults, not trial-proven safety thresholds.

Full rationale and implementation

Mechanical effects clearer than performance benefit

Technique and cues

Cadence changes can alter mechanics; universal injury prevention or an ideal form is not established. Terrain cues are short self-coaching experiments, not individually validated prescriptions. Keep only cues that repeatedly help comfort, effort and control.

Full rationale and implementation

Established principles; high-dose and ultra case evidence limited

Fueling, hydration and heat

Practise tolerable carbohydrate delivery and condition-specific fluids. The eight-man 120 g/hour study and single elite ultra case do not prove a universal best dose. Heat increases carbohydrate demand, but does not supply one fluid or sodium number for everyone.

Full rationale and implementation

Fundamentals first; thresholds are practical rules

Recovery, readiness and taper

Sleep, food, fluids and appropriate load reduction remain the foundation. Ultra sleep evidence is heterogeneous and recovery-modality comparisons often have low certainty. The readiness traffic light and 2–3-week taper are practical frameworks; these linked studies do not validate every cutoff or taper detail.

Full rationale and implementation

Limits of the framework

Run–walk timing, weekly progression percentages and session scheduling are not universally validated. Use the practical rules conditionally, with readiness and safety flags taking priority. No new research was conducted for this site redesign.

Research behind the strength recommendation

Protocol → recommendation → finding → source