## 4 Discussion
In summary, we applied steady-tempo running at a pace of 5\({}^{\prime}\)40\({}^{\prime\prime}\)-5\({}^{\prime}\)30\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km (the most frequently used specific method in PASm-12, representing 35.1% of total means used), moderate-paced long-distance running (making up 26.9% of the total), interval running (9.5%), Fartlek running (9% of total training means), steady-tempo running at 5\({}^{\prime}\)10\({}^{\prime\prime}\)-4\({}^{\prime}\)50\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km (programmed at 5.8%), whereas hill running and steady-tempo running at 5\({}^{\prime}\)40\({}^{\prime\prime}\)-5\({}^{\prime}\)10\({}^{\prime\prime}\)/km were the least used exercises in PASm-12, representing 5.6% and 4.6% of the total means programmed, respectively. Additionally, competitive races conducted as tests in PASm-12 account for 3.6%. In contrast to PASm-12, another study recommends replacing 25-30% of running volume with other training options [54], which is agreed upon in our case. The Dynamics of Volume and Intensity Indicators in PASm-12  
The most important training indicators targeted by PASm-12 were the volume and intensity of effort. Quantitative parameters--volume indicators such as running distance and duration (when applicable)--were considered, while execution times, related with the predetermined tempo and the athlete's functional demand (heart rate relative to maximum heart rate--MHR), provided data on the qualitative component of effort, i.e., its intensity (the functional demand of the body in response to effort). In PASm-12, during the preparatory period (PP, October-January/mesocycle I-IV), we proposed a volume of 160 km in GPP and 194.00 \(\pm\) 32.18 km in SPP, with runners running an average of 40-46 km per week, 4 times per week, at an average intensity of up to 70% (72.8%) of MHR/athlete (monitored via Garmin watches). In the pre-competitive period (PPC, February-March/mesocycle V-VI), a larger running volume of 238.8 \(\pm\) 11.03 km was proposed, to be completed over 5 training sessions per week, with weekly volumes ranging from 36 km to 64.8 km and intensities between 65% and 82% of each athlete's capabilities (with an average of 75.2%/PPC mesocycle). During the competitive period (CP, April to mid-September/mesocycle VII-XI), the proposed training volume was 270.92 \(\pm\) 108.11 km, with runners running 42-67 km per week at intensity levels ranging from 68% to 85% of MHR/athlete (average of 77.8%). In the transition period (TP, mid-September, mesocycle XII), a volume of 29 km was proposed, with weekly training intensity ranging from 70% to 77% of MHR/athlete, averaging 78.2% per mesocycle. Our effort parameter phasing strategy in PASm-12 is similarly noted in other studies. For example, for an experienced half marathoner, weekly running volumes of 32, 48, or 64 km are recommended [37], and for training intensity, combining moderate- and high-intensity sessions is considered an effective approach [40]. In another study on endurance runners, combining volume and intensity of effort showed no consensus on the most effective practices for maintaining or developing health and performance in amateur runners: either increase intensity by 10% per week or run 70 km per week [53]. In PASm-12, we aimed to facilitate progressive biological adaptation to effort by scheduling shorter distances and times at the beginning of the training period to prevent early dropouts, often justified by amateur runners due to lack of time, injuries, or dissatisfaction with training due to fatigue [29]. Running more than 65 km per week for men and between 48-63 km per week for women is associated with higher health risks for amateur runners [57; 58; 59], and preventing these risks involves reducing training volume [60]. Excessive training volume can be detrimental, leading to fatigue, reduced training efficiency, uneconomic muscle effort, and increased injury risk [17]. Some authors, however, find current research results inconclusive in this regard [61].