## 4 Discussion
#### 4.2.3 Comparison of Test Results and Proposed Times in PASm-12 (The Response to Q3)  
We aimed to assess the efficiency of PASm-12, considering that it was not fully implemented (as expected for an intervention conducted under natural conditions over a relatively long period). We compared the average times per km from the field tests of the six athletes to the average time per test proposed by PASm-12. If these comparisons show no significant statistical differences, indicating the times achieved and proposed are statistically equivalent, we can affirm that the achieved volume and intensity of effort are sufficient to meet the planned performance. Following data analysis, we consider the results satisfactory, as they indicate that most of the times achieved in the field are lower than the average times proposed by PASm-12 (Table 9). Corroborating the results obtained from the responses to Q3, it can be asserted that PASm-12 is suitable for training for the half marathon, as the athletes' performances in the five tests were either better than or equivalent to the proposed times. Compared to the average proposed time per test, which is between the maximum and minimum (Table 9), the times obtained per test (average value S1-S6) are as follows: four of the recorded times are lower than the proposed time (with two differences being statistically significantly smaller), and the time recorded in Grosseto is weaker, but the difference is statistically insignificant. Thus, we consider the times to be equivalent. From the perspective of effect sizes for the times achieved compared to those proposed across the five tests, a valuable insight into the actual effectiveness of the PASm-12 plan can be drawn. The variation in effect sizes among the five tests reflects the direct impact of the plan on performance, highlighting the athletes' ability to adapt and respond to the specific demands of competitions. For most tests, except Grosseto, effect sizes (Cohen's d) indicate improved performance, where athletes achieved better times than those proposed. This demonstrates the effectiveness of PASm-12 in preparing athletes for competitions, validating its scientific and tailored approach to master athletes. A notable exception was the Grosseto test, where the negative effect size (\(-0.53\)) suggests that performance was below expectations. This finding indicates that competition performance is often influenced by a range of external factors related to the competitive environment. Factors such as course conditions, psychological pressure, and competition dynamics can affect results, causing them to differ from those obtained in non-competitive tests. This variation necessitates a deeper analysis of the factors that might be responsible for this deviation. As such, although the indicators of training volume and intensity were adhered to only 90.2% and 94.8% throughout the entire macrocycle/year of preparation as outlined in PASm-12, the female athletes managed to perform unequivocally at the average level accepted by consensus and projected by PASm-12. Therefore, following PASm-12 to a large extent results in positive outcomes for the performance of the female athletes in our subject group, even under conditions of international competition. This fact is also demonstrated by the placements achieved at the target competition set by PASm-12 (European Masters Athletics Championships Non Stadia, held in Grosseto, Italy, from 12-15 May 2022), where our female athletes achieved the following rankings: S1 finished 6 th (W50), recording her personal best time of 01:45:52 (PB) during the study period; S2 did not participate in the EMACNS--Grosseto due to family issues; S3 recorded a time of 01:39:41, placing 3 rd (W45); S4 completed the race with a time of 01:55:46, placing 8 th (W55); S5 achieved a time of 01:46:10, finishing 12 th (W50); and S6 obtained a time of 01:57:07, placing 17 th (W45).