Evaluate the effectiveness of different aerobic training methods for developing a marathon runner's conditioning program based on the FITT principle. (12 marks)
--- 28 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement:
- Different aerobic training methods show varying effectiveness for marathon preparation, with aerobic interval training proving highly effective overall.
- Key criteria include race specificity, fitness improvements achieved, and injury risk considerations.
Race Specificity:
- Long slow distance training (LSD) partially fulfils marathon demands through base endurance development at 60-70% MHR.
- While strong in building aerobic foundation, it fails to achieve race-pace preparation.
- Aerobic interval training at 75-85% MHR proves superior for developing marathon-specific pace, with endurance improvements directly transferring to race performance.
- Although effective for aerobic fitness development, high-intensity interval training shows limitations in marathon application due to excessive intensity.
Fitness Improvements:
- Evidence supporting LSD includes enhanced endurance capacity and fat burning through prolonged efforts.
- Aerobic interval training proves highly effective in developing fatigue resistance critical for sustained pace.
- The overall evaluation demonstrates aerobic interval training’s superiority in race-specific fitness development.
- High-intensity interval training, while inadequate for primary marathon preparation, contributes valuable running efficiency improvements when used sparingly.
Injury Prevention:
- LSD’s effectiveness lies in allowing high training volume with minimal physical stress on the body.
- Aerobic interval training adequately fulfils safety requirements when limited to appropriate frequency.
- The evidence indicates that excessive high-intensity work proves insufficient for safe marathon preparation.
- Weighing these factors shows LSD’s critical role in injury-free endurance development
Final Evaluation:
- The strengths outweigh the weaknesses because integrated programming maximises benefits while minimising risks.
- While strong in different areas, no single method proves comprehensive.
- The most effective approach combines 70% LSD, 20-25% aerobic intervals, and 5-10% high-intensity intervals.
- Although effective for base fitness development, LSD alone proves less suitable for performance improvement without aerobic interval training’s race-specific training benefits.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement:
- Different aerobic training methods show varying effectiveness for marathon preparation, with aerobic interval training proving highly effective overall.
- Key criteria include race specificity, fitness improvements achieved, and injury risk considerations.
Race Specificity:
- Long slow distance training (LSD) partially fulfils marathon demands through base endurance development at 60-70% MHR.
- While strong in building aerobic foundation, it fails to achieve race-pace preparation.
- Aerobic interval training at 75-85% MHR proves superior for developing marathon-specific pace, with endurance improvements directly transferring to race performance.
- Although effective for aerobic fitness development, high-intensity interval training shows limitations in marathon application due to excessive intensity.
Fitness Improvements:
- Evidence supporting LSD includes enhanced endurance capacity and fat burning through prolonged efforts.
- Aerobic interval training proves highly effective in developing fatigue resistance critical for sustained pace.
- The overall evaluation demonstrates aerobic interval training’s superiority in race-specific fitness development.
- High-intensity interval training, while inadequate for primary marathon preparation, contributes valuable running efficiency improvements when used sparingly.
Injury Prevention:
- LSD’s effectiveness lies in allowing high training volume with minimal physical stress on the body.
- Aerobic interval training adequately fulfils safety requirements when limited to appropriate frequency.
- The evidence indicates that excessive high-intensity work proves insufficient for safe marathon preparation.
- Weighing these factors shows LSD’s critical role in injury-free endurance development
Final Evaluation:
- The strengths outweigh the weaknesses because integrated programming maximises benefits while minimising risks.
- While strong in different areas, no single method proves comprehensive.
- The most effective approach combines 70% LSD, 20-25% aerobic intervals, and 5-10% high-intensity intervals.
- Although effective for base fitness development, LSD alone proves less suitable for performance improvement without aerobic interval training’s race-specific training benefits.