## 3 Results
#### 3.1.3 Comparison of Proposed and Realized Training Intensity through PASm-12 (Q2)  
The intensity indicator considered was based on the physiological response of the body to the strength of the stimulus/the physical exercise performed, specifically reflected by the heart rate (HR), expressed as the average percentage per mesocycle per athlete. This percentage value is related to the maximum heart rate (MHR) of each athlete (Table 8). These values, taken as the average percentage values of realized training intensity by S1-S6/mesocycle (relative to MHR/S), were compared with the proposed percentage values of mesocycle averages by PASm-12 (Table 9, Figure 1). Data analysis shows that training intensity was realized at 94.8%, indicating almost complete plan application. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Athlete** & **Training Zone** & **Heart Rate (bpm)** & **Tempo/Speed (min/km)** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{S5} & RL/LDL & 147 & slower than 7:19 \\  & MDL & 148–153 & 7:19–631 \\  & TDL & 154–164 & 6:31–5:14 \\  & ETL & 165–167 & 5:14–4:52 \\  & ITL & 168–170 & 4:52–4:39 \\  & SB & **171–max.** & faster than 4:39 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{S6} & RL/LDL & 133 & slower than 6:20 \\  & MDL & 134–144 & 6:20–5:36 \\  & TDL & 145–154 & 5:36–5:13 \\  & ETL & 155–168 & 5:13–4:20 \\  & ITL & 169–174 & 4:20–4:04 \\  & SB & **175–max.** & faster than 4:04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} RL/LDL: Low-intensity training, recovery pace); MDL: medium-intensity distance (medium-intensity running, base pace); TDL: threshold distance (threshold running, anaerobic threshold pace); ETL: endurance tempo (endurance pace, tempo running); ITL: interval training (interval training, high-intensity pace); SB: speed burst (speed bursts, sprints). The bold value represents the maximum heart rate for each athlete. These values serve as benchmarks for calculating individual percentage values in the case of the scheduled effort intensity.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mesocycles**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Effort Intensity (Average \%) Realized/**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Realized Training Intensity Average**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Athlete (S)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**S1–S6/Proposed (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **S1** & **S2** & **S3** & **S4** & **S5** & **S6** & **Realized** & **Proposed** \\ \hline I & 65\% & 75\% & 75\% & 60\% & 67\% & 70\% & 69\% & 70.0\% \\ II & 66\% & 76\% & 77\% & 62\% & 67\% & 70\% & 70\% & 75.0\% \\ III & 65\% & 67\% & 68\% & 63\% & 71\% & 72\% & 68\% & 70.0\% \\ IV & 69\% & 70\% & 70\% & 65\% & 70\% & 71\% & 69\% & 76.3\% \\ V & 68\% & 78\% & 74\% & 70\% & 72\% & 77\% & 73\% & 77.6\% \\ VI & 75\% & 65\% & 65\% & 70\% & 67\% & 70\% & 69\% & 72.8\% \\ VII & 75\% & 78\% & 75\% & 80\% & 76\% & 70\% & 76\% & 80.8\% \\ VIII & 75\% & 65\% & 65\% & 70\% & 67\% & 70\% & 69\% & 71.0\% \\ IX & 80\% & 75\% & 70\% & 76\% & 71\% & 70\% & 74\% & 76.2\% \\ X & 77\% & 72\% & 77\% & 81\% & 79\% & 75\% & 77\% & 80.5\% \\ XI & 79\% & 75\% & 72\% & 80\% & 78\% & 72\% & 76\% & 80.5\% \\ XII & 75\% & 66\% & 65\% & 70\% & 78\% & 70\% & 71\% & 78.3\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Effort intensity realized by runners and proposed by PASm-12. To verify if the proposed training intensity/mesocycle is statistically equivalent to the realized training intensity (Q2), we used the same statistical comparison procedure of the two effort intensities' means (realized/proposed) for the entire sample S1-S6/12 mesocycle, using the paired \(t\)-test and the bootstrapping method (1000 samples) (Table 9). We observe that, similar to the training volume, the realized training intensity by runners (average value S1-S6/mesocycle) is generally lower than the proposed intensity, with mostly negative differences. However, there are some exceptions where the realized intensity is close to or even higher than the proposed (mesocycle V, IX, and XII).