Endurance performance and physiology: training the aerobic engine
Endurance training is where physiology meets prescription: aerobic capacity, thresholds and efficiency all respond to training dose, but the numbers only mean something if they are measured and applied well. This guide starts from the closest thing the field has to consensus, the WHO physical activity guidelines that set population activity doses and the IOC statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport that frames what happens when training load outstrips fuelling. It then layers on the individual studies we have appraised, from footwear and running economy to how effort itself is measured. Along the way it defines the core terms, VO2max, maximal heart rate, perceived exertion and the dose-response relationship, and answers the questions clinicians ask most.
Updated as new evidence lands · last reviewed at Issue 7
Foundations: consensus & guidelines
The international consensus statements this topic is built on. Start here, then read the appraised studies below against them.
Updated IOC consensus on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (formerly RED-S), including the REDs CAT2 assessment tool.
- Reframes low energy availability as the root cause of a syndrome affecting many body systems, not only bone and menstrual health, in male and female athletes.
- Introduces the REDs Clinical Assessment Tool version 2 (IOC REDs CAT2) to stratify athletes by risk and guide return-to-training decisions.
- Recommends a multidisciplinary approach to prevention, screening and management rather than reliance on any single biomarker.
Our appraisal: An expert consensus (large author panel with structured review) that sets the current framework for assessing energy availability; it standardises language and screening rather than proving that any specific intervention restores health or performance. Treat the CAT2 risk categories as a structured clinical aid, not a validated diagnostic test.
Read the statement ↗Global guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour across the lifespan and clinical populations.
- Adults should do 150 to 300 minutes of moderate, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous, aerobic activity per week, plus muscle strengthening on two or more days.
- Some physical activity is better than none, and any amount counts toward health benefits; sedentary time should be limited.
- Recommendations extend across the lifespan and to pregnancy, older adults and people with chronic conditions or disability.
Our appraisal: A GRADE-informed guideline from a large evidence review, so the dose targets are among the better-grounded numbers in this field. Its limitation is deliberate breadth: it sets population activity doses, not sport-specific training prescriptions, and stops short of a firm sedentary-time threshold.
Read the statement ↗The evidence, appraised
Individual studies we have appraised, read against the consensus above, newest first.
Key terms in this topic
Frequently asked
Is VO2max the best measure of endurance fitness?
It is the classic ceiling for aerobic power, but it is not the whole story. Performance also depends on the fraction of VO2max you can sustain, your thresholds, and on economy, how much oxygen a given pace costs. Two athletes with the same VO2max can perform very differently, so treat it as one input rather than the verdict.
How much activity should most people actually be doing?
The WHO 2020 guidelines set a concrete target for adults: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity per week, plus muscle strengthening on two or more days. The reassuring message alongside it is that some activity is always better than none, and any amount counts.
What is Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, and why does it matter for endurance athletes?
REDs describes the health and performance consequences of low energy availability, when intake does not match the energy cost of training. Endurance athletes are at particular risk because training volumes are high. The IOC consensus frames it as a multi-system problem affecting bone, hormones and performance, in both women and men, and offers a clinical assessment tool to stage risk.
Can I trust heart rate or perceived exertion to guide intensity?
Both are useful and cheap, but imperfect. Maximal heart rate estimated from age-based formulas carries wide individual error, and perceived exertion is subjective and context-dependent. They work best as a pair, and as trends within an individual, rather than as precise absolute targets.
Do carbon-plated (advanced footwear technology) shoes actually improve endurance performance?
On average they improve running economy by a few percent, which can translate into faster times, but the benefit varies a lot between individuals and is not fully explained by simple factors. Treat the average effect as real but personalise expectations, and read single studies with the usual caution about who was tested and how.
The five papers that matter, every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issue