## 3 Results
#### 3.1.4 Comparison of Realized Test Times with Proposed Execution Times in PASm-12 (Q3)  
To answer the question: How are runners' performances influenced by the partial application (90.2% of the proposed training volume and 94.8% of the requested intensity) of PASm-122. We chose to compare the realized test times of runners in the five tests with the proposed times in the microcycle within the mesocycle corresponding to the testing moments in PASm-12. We started from the premise that if these compared time values do not indicate significant statistical differences, and the test execution times and those proposed by PASm-12 are statistically equivalent, we can affirm that the training volume and intensity realized by runners are sufficient to achieve the planned performance goals for the major objective competition (EMACNS Grosseto). Results expressed in race times in the five tests conducted by the six female runners are presented in Figure 2. The female runners participated in all tests (except S2 in test 5), namely the non-specific 10 km test and four specific 21 km tests. In PASm-12, for the non-specific test (Zarnesti 10 km), the proposed and initially accepted tempo by runners was 5\({}^{\prime}\)10-4\({}^{\prime}\)50\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km, with an average of 5 min/km, converting to 3000 s/10 km for the entire test. For the specific tests in Chuj-Napoca, Oradea, and Brasov (21 Km), the proposed tempo by PASm-12 for the entire half marathon was 5\({}^{\prime}\)40\({}^{\prime\prime}\)-5\({}^{\prime}\)30\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km, with an average tempo of 5\({}^{\prime}\)35\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km, equivalent to 7035 s/21 km. For the European Masters Athletics Championships Non-Stadia (EMACNS Grosseto--Italy), the proposed training program tempo was 5\({}^{\prime}\)10\({}^{\prime\prime}\)-4\({}^{\prime}\)50\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km, with an average of 5\({}^{\prime}\)/km--thus, 6300 s/21 km. To verify Q3, we used the paired \(t\)-test to compare the realized test times (average value/test S1-S6) with the proposed average times per km (running tempo/km) at the five testing moments included in PASm-12. Calculations show that these times, except for the Grosseto test, are shorter, thus better, compared to the projected average test times in PASm-12 in the corresponding mesocycle/microcycle. Four differences between the two series of times are positive, and the time obtained at EMACNS--Grosseto (Italy) is longer than the proposed time, with a negative but statistically insignificant difference (Table 10). Figure 2: Results of the five tests in the 2020–2021 competition year. In the case of proposed average times (s/km/test) as a performance benchmark in executing the tests, analysis of these differences indicates varied results in testing: for three tests (Zarnesti, Oradea, and Grosseto), the average differences are not significant (\(p>0.05\)), meaning the runners achieved the overall \"finish time\" indicator at the projected average value set by PASm-12. For the tests in Cluj-Napoca and Brasov, the average differences are statistically significant, with \(p\) being less than 0.05; in these tests, the runners had weaker overall performance (S1-S6) than proposed by PASm-12. Therefore, it cannot be concluded with certainty regarding achieving the \"average test times/km\" proposed in PASm-12 and the actual test times, taken as an average value for the six runners in executing the tests.