## 3 Results
#### 3.1.1 Comparison of Proposed and Realized Training Volume through PASm-12 (Q1)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mesocycles**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Effort Volume Realized per Athlete (S)/km**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** & **S5** & **S6** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Training** \\ **Volume/km** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline I & 132 & 156 & 160 & 130 & 148 & 142 & 160.00 \\ II & 146 & 150 & 162 & 142 & 160 & 136 & 168.00 \\ III & 162 & 162 & 178 & 158 & 170 & 172 & 230.00 \\ IV & 172 & 178 & 180 & 168 & 176 & 168 & 184.00 \\ V & 178 & 202 & 220 & 185 & 206 & 201 & 231.00 \\ VI & 212 & 230 & 236 & 228 & 232 & 240 & 246.60 \\ VII & 228 & 227 & 230 & 228 & 230 & 235 & 243.80 \\ VIII & 90 & 150 & 95 & 90 & 93 & 95 & 94.60 \\ IX & 302 & 320 & 332 & 308 & 280 & 310 & 312.20 \\ X & 310 & 320 & 340 & 300 & 298 & 345 & 345.80 \\ XI & 270 & 308 & 315 & 290 & 265 & 310 & 358.20 \\ XII & 30* & 50* & 30* & 20* & 40* & 20* & 29.00* \\ \hline Total effort volume achieved per athlete (km) & 2232 & 2453 & 2478 & 2247 & 2298 & 2374 & 2603.2 \\ \hline Effort volume achieved per athlete from the proposed effort volume (\%) & 8.7 & 94.2 & 95.2 & 86.3 & 88.3 & 91.2 & 90.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Note: In the proposed volume, the athletes also accounted for mountain hiking activities to a greater or lesser extent. To verify if the proposed training volume in each mesocycle is statistically equivalent to the training volume performed (Q1), we used the paired _t_-test to compare the means of the two training volumes (proposed/realized) across the sample/12 mesocycle, employing the bootstrapping method for small samples (Table 6).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Effort volume realized by runners and proposed by PASm-12. Regarding the effect size, the calculated R\({}^{2}\) value is 0.8619, indicating that 86.19% of the variation in the realized training volume can be explained by the proposed training volume through PASm-12. This shows a strong correlation between the two sets of data. Additionally, the [PERSON]'s \(\ell^{2}\) value for the mean difference in training volume is approximately 6.24, indicating a large effect size. This suggests that the difference between the proposed and realized training volume is not only statistically significant but also has a substantial practical impact. 1.2 Determination of Maximum Heart Rate (MHR) and Establishment of Training Zones for the Research Subjects  
Based on the laboratory tests presented in the procedure section, individual training zones were established for each athlete, including maximum heart rate (MHR), which are essential for monitoring and adjusting the intensity of effort during the application of PASm-12 (Table 7). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pair** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Volume Indicator Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean S1–S6 (km)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Difference**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**t**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{_p_} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Compared/Mesocycle/Realized-Proposed** & **Mean S1–S6 (km)** & **Difference** & **t** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{11} & Realized training volume mesocycle XI & 293.00 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)65.20} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)7.414} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle XI & 358.20 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{12} & Realized training volume mesocycle XII & 31.67 & \multirow{2}{*}{2.67} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.559} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.600} \\  & Proposed training volume mesocycle XII & 29.00 & & & \\ \hline Total effort volume achieved (macrocycles) & 2347.00 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)256.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)5.997} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.002} \\ Total proposed effort volume (macrocycles) & 2603.20 & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._