## 4 Discussion
#### 4.2.1 Comparison of Proposed and Achieved Volume--The Response to Q  
To analyze the implementation of PASm-12 in terms of volume, we compared the total running volume completed by the six runners (2347 km) with the volume proposed by the annual plan (2603.2 km). The comparison shows a difference of 256.2 km between the proposed and achieved volumes over the macrocycle, corresponding to a 90.2% implementation rate of PASm-12 (Table 5). Generally, the female runners ran less than the proposed volume, with differences mostly negative and only twice positive in mesocycle VIII and XII. The differences are statistically significant at \(p\) = 0.05 for most mesocycle, except for VIII, IX, and XII (Table 6). Thus, we accept that for mesocycles VIII, IX, and XII, the differences between the proposed and the actual volume of effort are not statistically significant. In other words, in these three mesocycles, the athletes ran, on average, dis tances statistically equivalent to those proposed in PASm-12. Conversely, we reject that the differences between the proposed and actual volume are not statistically significant for the other mesocycles, where the proposed volume is greater than what was actually achieved. Therefore, we can state that the annual training plan (PASm-12), from the perspective of running volume, was implemented, but not fully. Periodic reports show that the overall training volume was achieved by the runners as follows: 85.7% by S1; 94.2% by S2; 95.2% by S3; 86.3% by S4; 88.3% by S5; and 91.2% by S6. The analysis of the effect size for the observed differences in the training volume achieved compared to the proposed one highlighted a significant effect size ([PERSON]'s \(\hat{f}^{2}\) = 6.24). The large effect size indicates that variations in training volume are sufficiently pronounced to have observable consequences on performance and athletes' adaptation. This finding emphasizes not only the statistical significance and substantial practical impact of the differences but also their relevance in the context of training planning for female master 45+ amateur athletes. Furthermore, the importance of this effect size extends beyond the validation of the PASm-12 training program, serving as a guiding tool for researchers planning similar studies and contributing to the improvement of reliability and validity in future research on this area. 2.2 Comparison of the Intensity Percentage Value Proposed in PASm-12 and That Achieved by S1-S6--The Response to Q2  
The training intensity achieved by the runners was implemented on average (S1-S6) at 94.79% of the proposed PASm-12 intensity. This high percentage indicates that although the achieved intensity (mesocycle I-XII/S1-S6: 69%; 70%; 68%; 69%; 73%; 69%; 76%; 69%; 74%; 77%; 76%; 71%) was slightly lower than the proposed intensity (70.0%; 75.0%; 70.0%; 76.3%; 77.6%; 72.8%; 80.8%; 71.0%; 76.2%; 80.5%; 80.5%; 80.5%; 78.3%) in most mesocycles, the annual training program implementation was very close to the established objectives. Thus, we accept that for mesocycles I, II, V, VIII, IX, and XII, the actual intensity of effort is statistically equivalent to the proposed intensity of effort. Conversely, we reject that the actual intensity of effort is equivalent to the proposed intensity for the other mesocycles, where the proposed intensity is significantly higher than what was actually achieved. Therefore, while PASm-12 was largely followed in terms of training intensity, it was not fully implemented (94.8%), indicating the need for some adjustments in future applications to ensure that the proposed intensity is met in all mesocycle. The results of the effect size calculation and the coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)) highlight several important aspects in evaluating the effectiveness of the PASm-12 plan, especially in the context of self-managed training and athletes' self-reporting of data.