## 1 Introduction
Regarding the timing and scheduling of training programs, from the study of various sources, we have found that the time intervals for which these training plans are developed vary: 12/15/32 weeks [32; 36], 12 weeks [37; 38], 20 weeks [23], or 4-6 months [39]. Some believe that a one-year training program is essential [17]. However, verifying these training programs' efficiency through experiments or quasi-experiments is rare or limited to elite runners [40]. As mentioned earlier, most training plan models target professional athletes, with far fewer tailored for amateur athletes. Generally, the traditional endurance training programming model is linear, featuring progressively structured training intervals in a predetermined sequence, including sessions, microcyles, and mesocycles that culminate in a macrocycle. Training periodization requires different training objectives, with its sequencing occurring during preparatory phases (focused on general and specific physical preparation, pre-competition, and competition preparation), concluding with a transition and recovery phase [28]. In the same context, another source emphasizes that scientifically approached training design and management should focus on key aspects of the training process, such as periodization, which require strategic adjustments to the volume and intensity of effort to optimize performance and physiological adaptation, along with training methods and monitoring, performance prediction, running technique, and the prevention and remediation of health issues associated with endurance running [23]. However, in practice, some half marathon runners employ a non-periodized strategy characterized by a fixed number of kilometers predetermined by repetitions throughout a training cycle [41]. This approach, while simplifying planning, may overlook critical aspects such as adjusting the volume and intensity of effort based on the athlete's physical condition and specific goals, which can limit the optimization of performance and proper physiological adaptation. In this complex context of planning and training practice for amateur female runners, our study aims to develop, apply, and confirm the efficiency of a staggered physical training program over one year (macrocycle) for female Master (+45) half marathoners, aiming to generalize the experience and good practices of nationally and internationally recognizedrunners adaptively. We believe their common training strategy can serve as a medium-term training model for amateur runners without a coach's counseling benefits. The emphasis placed on volume and intensity in this plan highlights our belief that precise management of these dimensions is essential for achieving the desired sports performance, without compromising the health and well-being of the female athletes. Based on these considerations, for the application of our annual physical training plan, we have formulated three research questions, each associated with a specific research direction. Question 1 (Q1): To what extent does the volume of effort performed by athletes align with the planned volume of effort in the annual physical training plan? The research direction for this question is to assess the congruence between planning and execution of training volume, evaluating the effectiveness of the programming. Question 2 (Q2): How does the intensity of effort performed by athletes compare with the proposed intensity of effort in the training plan for each mesocycle? This research direction aims to determine if the intensity of the training is appropriately adjusted to promote physiological adaptations without inducing risks of overtraining. Question 3 (Q3): Do the performances achieved in field tests meet the expectations established by the proposed average times in the training plan? The research direction for this question explores the relationship between scheduled preparation and actual performances, highlighting the importance of calibrating time goals according to the athletes' real capabilities.