Is Marathon Training Harder than the Ironman Training? An ECO-method Comparison

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Title: Is Marathon Training Harder than the Ironman Training? An ECO-method Comparison
Authors: Esteve-Lanao, Jonathan | Moreno Pérez, Diego | Cardona González, Claudia | Larumbe-Zabala, Eneko | Muñoz, Iker | Sellés, Sergio | Cejuela Anta, Roberto
Research Group/s: Research in Physical Education, Fitness and Performance (RIPEFAP)
Center, Department or Service: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Didáctica General y Didácticas Específicas
Keywords: Training intensity distribution | Polarized training | Training load quantification | Endurance training | Marathon | Ironman
Knowledge Area: Educación Física y Deportiva
Issue Date: 29-May-2017
Publisher: Frontiers Media
Citation: Esteve-Lanao J, Moreno-Pérez D, Cardona CA, Larumbe-Zabala E, Muñoz I, Sellés S and Cejuela R (2017) Is Marathon Training Harder than the Ironman Training? An ECO-method Comparison. Front. Physiol. 8:298. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00298
Abstract: Purpose: To compare the absolute and relative training load of the Marathon (42k) and the Ironman (IM) training in recreational trained athletes. Methods: Fifteen Marathoners and Fifteen Triathletes participated in the study. Their performance level was the same relative to the sex's absolute winner at the race. No differences were presented neither in age, nor in body weight, height, BMI, running VO2max max, or endurance training experience (p > 0.05). They all trained systematically for their respective event (IM or 42k). Daily training load was recorded in a training log, and the last 16 weeks were compared. Before this, gas exchange and lactate metabolic tests were conducted in order to set individual training zones. The Objective Load Scale (ECOs) training load quantification method was applied. Differences between IM and 42k athletes' outcomes were assessed using Student's test and significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: As expected, Competition Time was significantly different (IM 11 h 45 min ± 1 h 54 min vs. 42k 3 h 6 min ± 28 min, p < 0.001). Similarly, Training Weekly Avg Time (IM 12.9 h ± 2.6 vs. 42k 5.2 ± 0.9), and Average Weekly ECOs (IM 834 ± 171 vs. 42k 526 ± 118) were significantly higher in IM (p < 0.001). However, the Ratio between Training Load and Training Time was superior for 42k runners when comparing ECOs (IM 65.8 ± 11.8 vs. 42k 99.3 ± 6.8) (p < 0.001). Finally, all ratios between training time or load vs. Competition Time were superior for 42k (p < 0.001) (Training Time/Race Time: IM 1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 1.7 ± 0.5), (ECOs Training Load/Race Time: IM 1.2 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 2.9 ± 1.0). Conclusions: In spite of IM athletes' superior training time and total or weekly training load, when comparing the ratios between training load and training time, and training time or training load vs. competition time, the preparation of a 42k showed to be harder.
ISSN: 1664-042X
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00298
Language: eng
Type: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights: © 2017 Esteve-Lanao, Moreno-Pérez, Cardona, Larumbe-Zabala, Muñoz, Sellés and Cejuela. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Peer Review: si
Publisher version:
Appears in Collections:INV - RIPEFAP - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Thumbnail2017_Esteve-Lanao_etal_FrontPhysiol.pdf578,07 kBAdobe PDFOpen Preview

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons