Science of the Paddy Buckley: Coaching an Athlete to a 100-Kilometre Mountain Run

This year I’ve been lucky enough to begin coaching some extremely ambitious off-road/mountain-based endurance athletes. One particular athlete, Tony, set his sights on attempting the Paddy Buckley Round, an iconic 100 kilometre fell running route in Eryri, North Wales. Throughout this run, the athlete summits 47 mountains, climbing a total elevation gain of over 9,000 metres/29,500 feet (which, for reference, is more elevation than if someone was to summit Everest from sea-level).

This article gives an insight into my role as the coach in helping Tony conquer what is often regarded as the United Kingdom’s toughest mountain running challenge. Therefore, this article will not tell a story of the day itself, but more the training process that led up to the day of Tony’s attempt. For a more detailed account of the day, I’m sure Tony will discuss it on his instagram, which you can follow here!

This post is split into two sections. The first looks into the less scientific aspects of the training process, like my coaching principles, how they applied to myself and Tony’s coach/athlete relationship and the general format of the coaching process before a discussion into the training decisions we made to specifically target optimal performance for the Paddy Buckley Round.

The Foundations of Successful Training

My view on coaching is that - regardless of the sport - training prescription alone is not sufficient in stimulating improvements in physical performance and that a healthy culture and coach/athlete relationship should be developed to ensure physical training is completed most effectively. The joy and the health of the athlete is undoubtedly the priority of my coaching. That isn’t to say I don’t value success (whether it be task or ego-oriented), as I definitely do, but I’m quite firm in my belief that success is best achieved when the athlete is genuinely enjoying the training process and isn’t sacrificing their mental and/or physical health to achieve it. Therefore, even for the most competitive athletes I coach, joy and health is always the priority.

The self-determination theory of motivation is a valuable tool I use to ensure joy is prioritised during the planning and completion of training. This theory postulates that humans have three basic needs for positive psychological functioning, which are feelings of autonomy, relatedness and competence.

Autonomy: Feelings of being in control of aspects relating to one’s role

Relatedness: Feelings of being connected and belonging with others

Competence: Feelings of being effective at one’s activity

To ensure the athlete feels autonomous during the training process, I aim to strike a balance between providing structured training and allowing freedom. When prescribing training I provided general guidance in terms of intensity and length (for example “easy 75-90 minutes”), but refrained from providing much detail in regards to the terrain or elevation the athlete should be running on. I feel as though too much detail in training prescription can lead to an athlete feeling like they’re only the “completer” of the training and thus only a small part of the process. This might be an effective way of training over a short period, especially if that athlete is in a race-specific training phase, but it seems to rob the athlete of any autonomy over a prolonged period.

Outside of events (where the athlete’s crew plays a huge role), ultrarunning is generally an individual sport, and ensuring an athlete achieves sufficient feelings of relatedness can sometimes be difficult.

However, providing an athlete with slightly more autonomy may give them a greater chance of searching out feelings of relatedness by training or competing with others (Tony competed in local fell and orienteering events throughout the training period). Alongside this, I think it’s important to try generating a team culture, even if that team is just myself and the athlete. A key principle within my training philosophy is that the coach/athlete relationship should be a collaboration rather than a dictatorship, meaning the athlete has a large contribution to the planning of the training process, not just the execution. Ensuring the athlete contributes to the process is even more important when working with ultra-distance runners, as it’s a discipline I have little experience working in (and Tony has vast experience competing in ultra-distance events, like the Ultra-Trail Snowdonia 100 kilometre and the Lakeland 100 miler). As a result, the general training planning process was a case of me proposing ideas and Tony providing his thoughts on those ideas based on his practical experience of training for and competing in ultra-distance events. This, alongside helping to create a team-like environment, ensures the athlete feels autonomous, too.

Finally, I believe that ensuring the athlete feels suitably competent (or more importantly, ensuring they don’t feel incompetent) is absolutely vital meaning it’s important that the athlete’s view of success is both healthy and controllable. Developing a task-orientation of success (where success is based upon mastery/individual performance improvements rather than comparison with other athletes) over an ego-orientation (where success is based on winning and beating other competitors) is possibly the most important factor in fostering healthy feelings of competence. Bernsten and Kristiansen’s (2019) guidelines for need supportive coach development highlight four key points for preventing an athlete developing an ego-orientation:

• Focus on self improvement

• Focus on mastery and effort

• Athlete set goals

• Give attention to all athletes regardless of if they’re doing well or struggling

The above four points came fairly naturally to the training process. Firstly, it’s very clear from discussions with Tony that he’s extremely intrinsically motivated, which would automatically point towards him possessing a task-orientation of success. I know that simply being able to run is of higher value to Tony than any race result, which I’m confident is the ideal mindset to have for both long term enjoyment and long term athletic development, as both go hand in hand (despite what hyper-masculine instagram influencers may claim). In terms of goal-setting, Tony came to me with the goal of completing the Paddy Buckley Round. I had no influence over this decision and other goals relating to the attempt (like goal finishing time), which I believe is the most healthy dynamic to ensure the athlete has full control over their own running journey. For a deeper discussion on task vs ego orientation from a proven off-road running coach, I’d recommend reading Dan Connolly’s recent substack post, which you can find here.

Secondly, I think recognising that the athlete will not benefit from criticism is imperative, especially in my unique (but fortunate) case where all the athletes I work with are extremely driven and ambitious. As a result of their drive and ambition, the athletes are likely their own harshest critic, and the last thing they need is someone else adding to that criticism. Therefore, it’s even more important to act as a beacon of positivity and optimism. I’m aware that, in many athletes, small setbacks in the training process can be magnified or over-dramatised in their own mind, so acting as an alternative viewpoint (who’s less emotionally involved, and as a result can provide a more balanced viewpoint than the athlete themself) becomes imperative. This isn’t something I have to fake as I’d like to think I’m a naturally optimistic person when it comes to chasing big goals. Additionally, I genuinely believe the negatives of criticism massively outweigh the potential benefits, so it doesn’t ever cross my mind to criticise an athlete.

Monitoring the athlete played a huge role in ensuring the athlete remained healthy and happy during the training process. Monitoring was conducted daily through a google forms page, the results of which were automatically sent to a spreadsheet, allowing for very easy data analysis. The questions on the monitoring questionnaire included a mix of objective (resting heart rate and heart rate variability) and subjective (mood and motivation) measures. I’ve been lucky enough to work in analysis in professional team-sports, and have therefore had an opportunity to develop some key principles in regards to athlete monitoring. The fundamental principle is that subjective measures take priority over objective measures, as there’s no machine that knows the athlete better than they know themselves. Should training be altered if the athlete’s heart rate variability is below average but they feel amazing? Would we train as usual, even if the athlete felt awful, if heart rate variability suggested the athlete was in perfect shape to train? I don’t think so. Instead, the objective measures were used to add clarity to the athlete’s subjective feelings, which I believe to be the most suitable compromise.

We didn’t have to make drastic changes to training throughout the block (additionally, living and dying by data is never a good idea), but it was a handy tool in analysing how Tony responded to different types of training stress in order to plan future training weeks. For example, I kept a closer eye on Tony’s monitoring numbers following a new training stressor (like a new training phase structure to target physiological durability, which is discussed in more detail below). Quite early into the training process, we found that Tony doesn’t seem to take a large systemic hit following low intensity running, regardless of the length. This allowed me to prescribe a low intensity long run the day following a demanding workout without too much fear of the quality of upcoming training days being sacrificed. As mentioned, I discuss the structures of physical training below, but it’s important to keep in mind that a process of “Experimentation → Monitoring → Adjustments” was key in developing training structures that were completed consistently throughout the training weeks.

Physical Training

It’s very important to begin this section by noting that it’s difficult to give myself too much credit in regards to Tony’s Paddy preparation. I coached Tony for the 10 weeks leading into the attempt, but I believe the training required to even consider attempting something as demanding as a Paddy Buckley Round requires years (if not decades) of training, and thus the vast majority of credit should go to Tony himself and his previous coaches for getting him to the point in which he believes such a demanding challenge is possible. As a result, this section will be mostly focused on the “specific” phase of training going into the attempt.

I started working with Tony at the beginning of April, but I had been tracking and inputting his training data from the beginning of 2025, which allowed me to identify any patterns. I was eager to make slight adjustments to Tony’s training and not fully revamp it - I feel the latter would not only be physically risky (by exposing the athlete to large amounts of training that they may not be familiar with) but also an ego-driven coaching decision as it strips the athlete of any sort of autonomy. The first minor change we made was to reduce the intensity of non-workout runs. As will be discussed, Tony often completed clusters of training that would be a large physiological stress, so we made sure that most running outside of these clusters were completed at a very low intensity. The stimulus for peripheral adaptations (mitochondria and capillary related) seems to be large volumes of training completed consistently, regardless of intensity (Seiler, 2024), so it seemed most safe to really tone down the intensity of these workouts, as the adaptations would likely occur regardless. We didn’t look at training zones too much throughout the training process as the boundaries within my zone model are imbedded in physiology (lactate), and with the coaching being done in a remote setting, monitoring lactate was not possible. However, I could very safely estimate that all easy runs would be completed in zone 1, where lactate concentration is that of resting levels (aside from a slight rise at the beginning of each run, regardless of intensity, due to VO2 kinetics). I won’t discuss zone 2 too much here as everyone seems to have a different definition of what it actually is, but according to my own model and zone definitions, Tony would’ve completed very little training (if any at all) in zone 2.

Within some of these low intensity runs (often twice a week) the athlete completed strides in a general structure of 5 x 12 seconds with 2-3 minutes of recovery in between repetitions. To stress a specific energy system, we could’ve extended repetition length or reduced the recovery periods, but these strides were completed with exclusively neuromuscular adaptations in mind. A fast leg turnover is not a primary demand of an event like the Paddy Buckley, but for long term development I felt that strides were a low risk intervention to include. Mountain athletes, despite building fitness, risk neglecting neuromuscular adaptations due to the extremely slow nature of some workouts (for reference, there are some climbs in South Wales where I’m able to reach my maximum metabolic steady state while moving slower than 15:00/mile). I believe neuromuscular adaptations can diminish rapidly if not practised enough (especially for mountain athletes whose average running pace per week is likely to be a lot slower than that of a road runner with identical physiological markers), and Tony’s plans for the autumn/winter include events that may demand a fast leg turnover, so it seemed sensible not to let this quality degenerate especially when it is so easy to maintain.

A major focus of this mesocycle was to develop durability, both in a physiological and mechanical sense. Here, physiological durability refers to developing resistance against a degeneration of physiological performance under fatigue (Hunter et al. 2025) while mechanical durability (also referred to as muscular endurance throughout this post), despite not being commonly used in the literature, refers to the resilience against muscle damage. In an ideal world, Tony would run the full Paddy Buckley round right at the maximum metabolic steady state, but this is never going to be possible due to the inescapable effects of other fatigue types. Instead, we can either aim to delay the onset of fatigue for as long as possible or to ensure that the gap between fatigue and fresh state performance is as small as possible. Within many of the durability specific workouts, we aimed for the latter, while the former was targeted during extensive runs at a low intensity. The durability workout was often sandwiched between two low intensity runs of a longer duration, which formed a 2-3 day training period that was dedicated to improving the athlete’s physiological durability.

I feel as though to develop physiological resilience, the athlete must complete demanding work following the onset of fatigue. Therefore, we aimed to induce a small amount of fatigue prior to the durability session by completing large volumes of low intensity work in the training unit prior to the specific session. This was often in the form of a 75-90 minute easy run in the morning and a 30 minute run (or sometimes cross training session) in the evening, before the durability session the following morning.

The specific workout followed a similar structure to the 2-3 day training period - to complete intensive work under fatigue. The general structure of the durability workout was a long period of easy running followed by repetitions (completed just under the maximum metabolic steady state). The session was gradually extended throughout the training period:

Beginning of the training period: Easy 90 minutes followed by 3 x 1 mile

Pre-taper, end of the training period: Easy 2 hours followed by 3 x 7 minutes

The repetitions were never ran above the maximum metabolic steady state (MMSS). Purely from a training adaptation point of view, this session would work better if the repetitions were completed above the MMSS, but this would hugely increase the risk of illness or injury (completing extremely intensive work following large volumes of low intensity work is almost certainly going to suppress immune function), so we instead aimed to stay below the “threshold” to prevent a dramatic rise in fatigue and likely a prolonged recovery (Burnley, Vanhatalo and Jones, 2012). For the most part I think using intensity control in this way may have played a role in allowing for more consistent training. Throughout the 10 weeks, Tony missed two days of training through illness, so that record combined with Tony’s heart rate variability numbers (that suggested that, at least from an autonomic nervous system point of view, Tony was recovering fairly well) would point towards the 2-3 day training blocks being sensible, despite being extremely demanding.

The day following the durability session was a low intensity long run. Similarly to the durability specific workouts, the length of this run was extended from 2.5 to 3.5 hours throughout the mesocycle, the length of which was discussed with Tony as I felt I was shooting in the dark when trying to prescribe a long run to an athlete preparing for a 18+ hour run. A longer training phase would’ve given us more of a chance to experiment and perhaps push the boundaries even further in regards to the length of the long run, but experimenting with this aspect of training within a ten week block seems extremely risky. There were no strict instructions for this long run, other than to go as easy as possible (in a similar vein to the low intensity runs, as discussed above) in mountainous terrain. This meant that, during the three day training phase, Tony would’ve completed upwards of 7.5 hours of running with around 25 minutes of running (under fatigue) near the maximum metabolic steady state.

Although I just discussed that we didn’t have long enough to push the boundaries of the long run, we did have long enough to experiment with the format of these durability focused training clusters, as full experimentation only took three weeks. As mentioned above, the general format we agreed upon was to have a long + short low intensity workout on day 1 (often a friday), extensive followed by intensive on day 2 (often saturday) and then the long run at low intensity on day 3 (often sunday). However, we also experimented with a single day cluster consisting of a long run in the AM followed by an intensive session in the PM as well as a long progression run (2 hours finishing at marathon effort, so nothing too demanding) on the friday and then a short fell race on the saturday. Despite being different workout formats, they all ensured that the athlete was completing intensive work under fatigue which was the most important goal of this type of training. There are so many different ways of reaching the same desired stimulus, so the goal of the experimentation was to identify what format Tony enjoyed the most and found to be most compatible with his non-sporting life. In the end, the general structure of the durability-focused training cluster tended to be:

Friday: AM easy 75-90 minutes PM Easy 30-45 minute run or cross train

Saturday: Easy 2 hours followed by 4 x 5 minutes at the MMSS

Sunday: Easy 3-3.5 hours in hills

The above training was completed with the goal of improving Tony’s physiological durability (for example, preventing the degeneration of running economy once fatigued). There are numerous causes of fatigue that can reduce physiological performance, but the leading cause (that cannot be prevented by fuelling sufficiently) is muscle damage, and developing mechanical durability aims to prevent the locomotor muscles from becoming damaged. It’s important to note that mechanical durability (or muscular endurance, as it’s commonly referred to) is certainly being improved during the training periods designed to improve physiological durability too, but I feel that there are some additional interventions that can further enhance an athlete’s muscular endurance fairly rapidly.

Outside of the gym, the main intervention used was fast downhill running for short periods, which forces aggressive eccentric muscle contractions, most importantly in the quadriceps. Localised muscular strength/endurance was at the forefront of my mind when developing this training method, but there’s almost certainly a neuromuscular benefit too. For the most part we treated these downhill repetitions like strides, short bursts (20s) with long recoveries relative to the repetition length (around 60s). If the goal adaptation was focused on power or “leg speed” development then the recovery lengths could be extended to beyond 2-3 minutes, but with muscular endurance (and durability) being the goal, I felt completing repetitions without full recovery wasn’t harmful. There are naturally risks involved with this method of training - there’s likely to be humongous forces placed through the body when completing downhill running at paces faster than 4:25/mile (I’d say 10-12 times one’s bodyweight, but this is an estimate based off data from those likely running a lot slower than what Tony was running). For this reason, the total intense volume was kept to a minimum, often only around a single minute of intense downhill running in a single session. However, nearing the attempt, Tony provided such valuable feedback on the state of the locomotor muscles following long runs, which sparked us to increase the total volume of intense downhill repetitions to stress the muscular system slightly more before the taper. The biggest downhill specific workout we completed was 10 x 1 minute with a jog back up as recovery (the recovery lengths were a lot longer than previously discussed) following a 90 minute long run at low intensity, which was completed a week before the attempt. Monitoring from previous muscular endurance sessions (including those in the gym, to be discussed below) suggested that Tony was able to recover fairly quickly from demanding muscular work, so completing this seven days out seemed sensible.

We did quite a lot of gym-based training in the hope of enhancing both physiological and muscular durability, too. General strength training was completed for the majority of the ten week block. These sessions included low repetition/higher weight lifting supersetted with plyometric work. Examples of these supersets include:

• Back squat (5 reps) supersetted with depth jumps (5 reps)

• Single leg isometric calf raise (25-30s) supersetted with pogo jumps (10 reps)

The heavier lifting was completed with durability in mind (Zanini, 2025), but also has immense benefits in regards to injury prevention and improving running economy through an improved stride length (Blagrove, 2015). The plyometric exercises were completed with the goal of improving achilles tendon stiffness. I don’t think the topic of tendon stiffness/elasticity is as black and white as what many make out, and I do believe there’s a case to be made (for some athletes) for improving tendon elasticity rather than stiffness, but stiffness takes priority for the vast majority of athletes due to its faster release of elastic (free) energy which would - up to a specific point that hasn’t been clearly identified yet - certainly improve the athlete’s running economy. Additionally, an under-discussed benefit to tendon stiffness for mountain athletes is its role in balancing the athlete during very steep ascents. The rationale for combining heavier lifting with plyometric work is supported by anecdotal evidence and convenience. There are only a finite number of hours/training units an ultra endurance athletes can dedicate to non-endurance training within a week, so it seemed most suitable to combine the two training methods into a single session (especially considering my previous experience of using this type of superset within the training of other athletes would suggest that plyometric quality is not sacrificed following a heavier lifting set).

Nearing the Paddy attempt, the gym-based training focus transitioned to muscular endurance rather than strength. In preparation for running on flat gradients, I’m not sure if completing additional muscular endurance work is necessary as running long distances is the ultimate form of muscular endurance training. However, off-road running has vastly different demands to road/track, making additional gym-based muscular endurance work more valuable. Additionally, Tony doesn’t live in a mountainous area, so replicating the muscular impact of mountain running in a gym was a good alternative. These sessions were concentrically focused, aimed at targeting uphill-specific muscle contractions. I felt this balanced out well with the eccentric contraction work that was being completed (to be discussed more below). As a muscular endurance workout, the session was structured in the style of a circuit with submaximal recoveries and high volumes of repetitions, although the majority of exercises were completed either without additional weight or only with a small amount of additional weight (<20kg).

Examples of exercises within the circuit include box step ups, jumping alternating split squats and jump squats. Each exercise would be completed for 45 seconds if multilateral, but a total of 90 seconds (45 each leg) if unilateral. There would be no recovery period between each exercise, but there would be a 1 minute static recovery in between each circuit, which consisted of around 5 exercises. Exercise induced muscle damage is usually a result of aggressive eccentric contractions, but experience has shown concentric contractions completed in large volumes can induce similar damage, allowing for a strengthening of the muscle in the supercompensation phase. For the most part, I felt this circuit worked well, but over the long-term this could be adapted to reflect the ideas of Yuri Verkoshansky a little more, who designed muscular endurance workouts with heavier additional weight and much longer recovery lengths between workout rounds to allow for higher repetition volumes within those rounds. However, as physical training is all about making the next logical step, designing a small circuit seemed sufficient in developing muscular endurance for now.

Alongside the increased volume of downhill running intensity (discussed above), we also made slight adjustments to the muscular endurance workout to better replicate the demands of downhill running.

The general structure of this workout was similar to that of the general strength session, where the athlete completed a superset followed by a longer recovery (rather than short/non-existent recoveries like in the muscular endurance circuit). the superset tended to consist of an eccentrically focused exercise (like a decline squat or an eccentric step down) followed by an exercise with both eccentric and concentric demands (jump squats or alternating jumping lunges), which were completed with the goal of maintaining some of the concentric work Tony had previously completed. A 5 second down phase was recommended for the eccentric exercises to prolong the engagement of the muscles.

Where I Could Improve

Despite only coaching Tony for 10 weeks, I’ve learnt how much training structure on a macro-level can vary from sub-ultra to ultra-distance training. Ultra-runners may only target 2-3 races per year, while those competing over short distances (on the fell running circuit, for example) may compete more than 15 races per year. Those who only compete 2-3 times a year can afford to hyper-specialise to the specifics of each event, and I don’t think I made the most of that specialisation opportunity. If I had valued this slightly more, we could’ve placed an increased emphasis on both passive and training-based heat exposure, the acclimation of which could’ve increased maximal oxygen uptake (via an increase in blood plasma volume), muscular endurance (through an increase in heat shock proteins) and allowed for better fuelling. A recent study by Takei et al. (2024) found an earlier onset of sweat lactate/higher concentration of blood lactate in 30 degrees compared to 20 degrees, while historic work by George Brooks has found increased concentrations of blood lactate to block ghrelin, a hormone responsible for feelings of hunger.

The general idea is that if the athlete can both delay the onset or reduce the concentration of lactate at a given workload, they may also be in a better position to fuel more. There are a couple of issues with this idea, though. Firstly, although ghrelin suppression will also suppress appetite, it should not physically impact the athlete (in that their gut is still likely to be able to withstand the same volume of fuel as it would when ghrelin isn’t suppressed). Secondly, energy system kinetics are still debated when it comes to extremely long endurance events, and evidence is limited to anecdotal (often from those linked with nutritional companies who sell sodium bicarbonate-type products) or simply flawed research methods. To get a better understanding of this, I think I’d have to conduct testing in the field, so if there are any ultrarunners out there who’d be happy for me to measure their blood lactate during aid-stations of a race that spans beyond 15 hours, please get in touch!

The Paddy Buckley Round will always be a massive physiological stress, regardless of the athlete’s fitness. In future, I think I can set up a slightly more thorough system to monitor recover following the attempt to get a better gauge of when the athlete is prepared to jump back into full training. As mentioned, no one - and no system - knows the athlete better than the athlete themself, and this will always be prioritised but I feel some more objective measures of recovery could’ve been used to better predict recovery. For example, an idea I’ve previously toyed with but didn’t use on this occasion was the use of velocity based training as a monitor of recovery. I’ve previously discussed this in more detail on my substack, but the general idea is to measure the athlete’s velocity during the upward phase of a squat prior to the Paddy attempt, and then measure it during the recovery period following the Paddy, which should give an insight into both peripheral recovery (whether the sarcomeres have returned from their overly stretched state, which is likely the cause of exercise induced muscle damage) and central recovery (whether the brain can produce sufficient motor units to produce similar velocity to the pre-Paddy “fresh state” velocity).

This would’ve contributed extremely well to a rounded recovery monitoring system, which would’ve included a sound balance between subjective and objective measures. We did collect heart rate variability/resting heart rate data, which will be extremely valuable in the recovery phase. For example, Tony’s average HRV in the 10 weeks leading into the Paddy was 53 milliseconds and decreased to 21 in the day following the run. Once this increases back to around 53, we know that the nervous system aspect of recovery is complete. If I had introduced velocity based monitoring I could’ve developed a checklist that monitors different aspects of recovery, which (I believe), combined with subjective feelings, would’ve given a well rounded view of his recovery.

The primary focus of physical training was developing durability, both in a physiological and muscular sense. However, the focus of muscular endurance was on the locomotor muscles and not the respiratory muscles. Unlike the locomotor muscles (that have the opportunity to rest every few hours in between legs), the respiratory muscles rarely receive a recovery window, and are constantly working at a fairly low workload (with spikes of an increased workload during climbs) for the whole attempt. Improving strength (and an improvement in muscular endurance as a result) of the respiratory muscles should impact the athlete’s psychobiology by reducing perception of effort and thus prolonging time to exhaustion. Marcora (2019) claims “leg effort” and “breathing rate” are the two key correlates of an athlete’s perception of effort, and that an increased perception of effort coincides with a decreased time to exhaustion. the idea is that if the respiratory muscles are working less hard, then it may contribute to a decreased perception of effort.

The use of a PowerBreathe device may have been a low cost and low risk intervention to include into the training process. The use of this type of equipment was made aware to me a while ago following discussions with a coach of some of the United Kingdom’s best ultra-trail runners, and was said to have no real downside (in terms of negatively affecting locomotor muscle performance), so I think this is something I should’ve at least experimented with myself to get a better understanding of how it might apply to Tony’s Paddy attempt.

What’s Next?

Following the attempt, physical and mental recovery is paramount. Tony averaged 12 hours of running per week during 10 weeks leading into the attempt. Yes, the majority of this volume was low intensity but Tony completed some very physically demanding microcycles during these weeks, meaning some time for physical recovery is necessary. Preparation for such a challenge also requires immense sacrifice and planning, which is likely to have a big mental demand (especially when balancing non-sporting life, a luxury professional athletes don’t have to worry about).

Following full recovery, we will begin a gradual rebuild of training volume. For the latter parts of the year, Tony aims to target short fell races (often under 45 minutes in length). This is an extremely exciting challenge as the race demands are so different to what Tony has spent the last few months training for. I've began brainstorming ideas on how an athlete can adapt their physiological profile for optimal performance in <45 minute events following months of training for an event that could last >20 hours. I think the answer lies somewhere in the anaerobic energy system, but this is something I can go into more detail around following more brainstorming/experimentation over the next few months.

I think that’s about it! The process was super fun to be a part of, and I’ve learnt a huge amount about ultra-endurance sport by being a part of it. I think I’ve covered most topics, but if anyone has any specific questions that I haven’t covered, feel free to message me!

References

Berntsen, H. & Kristiansen, E., 2019. Guidelines for need‑supportive coach development: The Motivation Activation Program in Sports (MAPS). International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(1), pp.88–97. doi:10.1123/iscj.2018-0066

Blagrove, R., 2015. Strength and Conditioning for Endurance Running. Ramsbury: The Crowood Press Ltd.

Burnley, M., Vanhatalo, A., & Jones, A. M. (2012). Distinct profiles of neuromuscular fatigue during muscle contractions below and above the critical torque in humans. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 113(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00022.2012

Hunter, B., Maunder, E., Jones, A. M., Gallo, G., & Muniz-Pumares, D. (2025). Durability as an index of endurance exercise performance: Methodological considerations. Experimental physiology, 10.1113/EP092120. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP092120

Marcora, S. (2019) Psychobiology of Fatigue During Endurance Exercise. Endurance Performance in Sport.

Seiler, S. (2024) Training Intensity Distribution: the Why Behind the What. In Mujika, I (ed.), Endurance Training - Science and Practice. 2nd edition.

Takei, N., Inaba, T., Morita, Y., Kakinoki, K., Hatta, H., & Kitaoka, Y. (2024). Differential patterns of sweat and blood lactate concentration response during incremental exercise in varied ambient temperatures: A pilot study. Temperature (Austin, Tex.), 11(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2024.2375693

Zanini, M., Folland, J.P., Wu, H., Blagrove, R. (2025) Strength Training Improves Running Economy Durability and Fatigued High-Intensity Performance in Well-Trained Male Runners: A Randomized Control Trial. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.