Best-Practice Endurance Training – Olympic coaches unifying principles to fine-tune your training

The findings from a recent study by Sandbakk (2025) reveal a complex and carefully managed approach to endurance training among the elite Norwegian coaches. Despite variations across different sports, several unifying principles were observed.

Coaches largely followed a traditional periodisation structure, progressing from general preparation phases focused on building an aerobic base towards increasingly specific, higher-intensity training closer to competition periods. Early phases emphasised large volumes of low-intensity training to enhance endurance capacity and aerobic efficiency. As competitions approached, training became more race-specific, emphasising intensity, tactical elements, and technical skills relevant to each sport.

A typical training week for the athletes was anchored by 2–3 key training days. These days feature multiple demanding sessions, designed to provide substantial physiological stimuli. Between these key days, recovery sessions or lower-intensity activities were strategically placed to allow for adaptation while maintaining training consistency. The balance of stress and recovery was a central concern, with coaches systematically monitoring athletes’ responses to training to avoid overtraining and optimise performance gains.

Monitoring of training load and recovery involved both objective and subjective measures. To adjust training programmes, coaches used physiological testing, training diaries, perceived exertion ratings, and regular athlete-coach communication. Recovery strategies were proactively integrated, including rest days, lighter training sessions, and non-training interventions when necessary to support physical and psychological readiness.

In all sports, most of the total training time (85–95%) is devoted to aerobic endurance training, in which a significant portion of this (80–90%) is dedicated to LIT (zones 1–2)

Although these general patterns were common across all sports studied, notable sport-specific differences emerged. Training volume and frequency were adapted to each discipline’s physiological demands and mechanical constraints. For instance, sports such as rowing and cross-country skiing, which involve large muscle mass and significant mechanical load, require careful management of strength training to avoid excessive fatigue. Conversely, endurance runners, who face high mechanical stresses from impact, had comparatively lower overall training volumes but placed greater emphasis on quality running sessions and injury prevention strategies.

Intensity distribution, often referred to as the “polarised” model in endurance sports literature, varies by sport and the individual needs of athletes. Some disciplines, such as swimming and speed skating, adopted slightly different intensity distributions based on the specifics of race demands and competition schedules.

Cross-training played a different role depending on the sport. In running, for example, non-weight-bearing activities such as cycling or swimming were often used to increase aerobic volume without adding additional impact stress. In other sports like biathlon or cross-country skiing, training blends modalities naturally as part of the discipline.

Strength training was universally recognised as necessary, but differed in emphasis and implementation. Sports demanding high power output, such as rowing and speed skating, incorporate heavy strength work throughout the training year. Endurance runners and triathletes applied strength training more selectively, often focusing on core stability, injury prevention, and maintenance rather than significant gains in muscle mass.

Overall, the findings illustrate a pragmatic and experience-informed approach to coaching, characterised by careful planning, responsiveness to individual athlete needs, and a deep understanding of the demands of each sport. The study highlights that, while foundational training principles are broadly applicable, successful coaching at the elite level requires nuanced adaptation to sport-specific and athlete-specific factors.

Source: springer

Take Out

Coaches emphasise high training quality through session optimisation, load-recovery management, and competition preparation.

Periodisation strategies are similar across sports, following a traditional model with decreasing training volume and increasing competition-specific work closer to competition.

Coaches take a pragmatic approach to adapt training to various constraints and consistently prioritise high volumes of zone 1 training, supplemented by 3–5 intensive sessions, 2–3 days each week.

Despite shared principles, sport-specific differences arise due to competition demands, exercise mode constraints, and organisational factors.