Calendar tap any day
UAlift
LRlong run
Qrun
Srest
deload & test
This week tap a day
When the week falls apart
1 · Sat long runreschedule
Move to Sunday, drop Upper A. Never lose it.
2 · Wed temporeschedule
Run it that evening — run first, then a short lift.
3 · Mon quality runmove
Push to Tuesday AM. Don't double it with the lower lift.
4 · Mon Lower Askip
One lower day still holds most of the injury protection.
5 · Upper A / Bskip
Zero cost to the race.
6 · Thu Lower Bskip
The designed release valve.
7 · Easy runsskip
That's what they're for.
Doubling rules
Put the session that matters most first. Meta-analysis found resistance-before-endurance favours lower-body dynamic strength, with no order effect elsewhere — so lift first by default, and run first only when the run is the priority session. And don't double on a leg day — Monday and Thursday are lower sessions, and a hard run plus heavy legs in one evening is the most fatiguing thing in this plan.
The long arc
Aug — Dec 13
Race build
Running leads, lifting protects it. Legs stay heavy and low-rep. The goal is arriving healthy, not peaking.
Dec 14 — 27
Recovery
No hard running for two weeks. Lifting returns first, running last. Resist signing up for anything.
Jan — Mar
Strength block
Running drops to three easy plus one quality. Leg volume climbs into hypertrophy ranges, quads come off the cap, and the hip gets resolved rather than managed around.
Apr onward
Next goal
Spring race off a real base, or keep building. December is a checkpoint on a much longer curve.
Big Apple Half — 13 December, 8:00 AM, Central Park.
The course 2.5 loops · Harlem ×2 · Cat ×3
Schematic, not surveyed. Hill order and count come from the official course description and race reports; exact mile placement isn't published.
StartWest Drive · 96th St
Shape2.5 loops via 72nd transverse
Finish102nd St transverse
Harlem Hill~100 ft · ×2
Cat Hill~50 ft · ×3
Total gain~470–590 ft
The trap
Cat Hill comes a third time after both Harlem Hills are behind you — a 50-foot climb somewhere past mile 11 on empty legs. Race reports repeatedly describe running out of gas on the flats, not the climbs. Running the first Harlem Hill slower than feels right is the single decision that protects your last 5K.
Hill strategy
Start → Harlem #1≤ 172 bpm
Deliberately easy. It should feel too slow.
Harlem Hill ×2to 185
Effort constant, pace drops 30–60 s/mi. Let it.
Descentsdrops on its own
Relax, don't brake, don't attack. Downhill is the highest knee load on the course.
Cat Hill ×1, ×2176–182
Steady, no surging.
Flats after Harlem #2178–182
This is where the race is won or lost.
Cat Hill ×3185+
Whatever's left.
Your paces set from the last 2-mile trial
This setting drives every pace shown on the daily cards. Riegel's power law from 2 miles to 13.1 is a long extrapolation — treat the projection as a range of several minutes, not a number. Week 12's test switches to a 10k for exactly this reason.
Progression rule
Paces change at a test, never mid-block. Hitting every rep means you earned faster paces at the next test — not that today's tempo should be quicker. If you can't hold pace on the final rep, the session ends there. Don't set a goal time until week 12.
Blocks and taper
| Block | Wks | Mon AM | Wed AM | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 1-4 | Easy + strides | Easy | 35→41 |
| Strength | 5-8 | Easy + strides | Hills | 45→53 |
| Speed | 9-12 | 5×3 min | Tempo 2×10 | 58→69 |
| Race-specific | 13-15 | 6×800m | 3×10 at HMP | 75→90 |
| Taper | 16-17 | 4×3 min | 2×10 at HMP | 45→32 |
| Race week | 18 | 3×3 min | Shakeout | 13.1 mi |
Taper, built to the evidence
Weeks 16-17 cut total running volume 43% then 56% from the week-15 peak — inside the 41-60% band that meta-analyses identify as optimal. Every run gets shorter, but you keep the same number of runs and keep doing half-marathon-pace work, because holding frequency and intensity constant is precisely what makes a taper work.
Testing weeks 4 · 8 · 12 · 16
Weeks 4 & 82-mile trial
Week 1210k trial — sets your goal
Week 165 mi at goal pace
WhenMonday AM, deload week
Effort~95% — not a race
Abort ifany hip / knee / ankle symptom
Weekly mileage
Derived from the pace setting above. The plan is prescribed in minutes on purpose — as you get fitter the same 90-minute long run becomes more miles, and the load self-corrects.
Race morning
Arrival6:00 AM · start 8:00
Wake~4:45, eat by 5:15
Rehearsalwks 16-17 long runs on Sunday
Fuelling practicefrom week 9, every long run
December in the parkdress for mile 3
Nothing newshoes, food, kit — all tested
Worth repeating once
Peak weeks put roughly 28 miles through a leg with a positive hip impingement test, three months of ankle pain, and a knee that collapsed inward on stairs after needing drainage. Strength training halves overuse injury risk in runners — that's why the lifting stays. It doesn't make an unexamined knee safe under a build with 480 feet of climbing.
The part that outlasts any race.
Hybrid principle
Upper body carries the volume; legs carry the load. Running doesn't interfere with upper-body hypertrophy, so that's where set volume lives. Legs go heavy and low-rep instead — loads at or above 80% of 1RM are what improve running economy, while high-rep leg work stacks fatigue onto five days of running without the same return.
Sun — Upper A push emphasis · 45 min
Incline DB press4×8-10 ▶
Chest-supported row4×8-10 ▶
Standing overhead press3×6-8 ▶
Dip or machine press3×10 ▶
Lateral raise3×15 ▶
Triceps pushdown3×12 ▶
Mon — Lower A heavy · 45 min
Before every leg sessionFive minutes of calf and hamstring work is mandatory, not warm-up filler. It's the one intervention with direct evidence in your case — it removed your hip crease pain mid-session. Depth, tempo and holds are all yours to set; change one variable at a time and log it.
Wed — Upper B pull emphasis · 45 min
Weighted pull-up / pulldown4×6-8 ▶
Flat DB press4×8-10 ▶
Cable row4×10 ▶
Face pull3×15 ▶
Barbell or DB curl3×10 ▶
Hammer curl2×12 ▶
Thu — Lower B posterior + rehab · 40 min
Weekly sets per muscle
Back12 sets
Optimal band. Rows twice, vertical pull once.
Chest11 sets
Optimal band. Incline, flat, and a dip or machine press.
Glutes13 sets
Highest in the plan — squat, RDL, thrust, split squat. Deliberate, given the rehab history.
Shoulders9 sets
Overhead press, laterals, face pulls.
Quads9 sets, heavy
Fewer sets than upper, but at higher intensity. Running supplies the volume; the gym supplies the load.
Hamstrings7 sets
RDL plus leg curl. Sprint-adjacent tissue on a leg that's about to run a lot.
Arms11 sets
Direct work plus what the compounds supply.
Progression
Upper — hit top of range+5% load
Upper effort1-2 reps in reserve
Lower — squat3×5 heavy + 1×8 back-off
Squat effort2-3 RIR, never grind
Add setsupper only, 1/muscle/month
Deloadrace deload weeks: cut sets 40%
Leg volume risesJanuary, not now
A meta-regression across 55 hypertrophy studies found growth improves as sets approach failure but the curve flattens past about 2 reps in reserve — and proximity to failure did not help strength at all. Grinding out the last rep costs recovery you need for running and buys almost nothing.
Every rule in this plan, and what it actually rests on.
How to read the grades
A — multiple meta-analyses or large trials agree. B — direction is clear, magnitude or population uncertain. C — contested, inferred, or the evidence cuts against what this plan does. Where a C sits under something you're doing anyway, the reason is stated.
Hybrid structure final audit — the newest part of the plan
AUpper body carrying the volume is correct — interference is body-part specific
This was the central bet of the hybrid restructure and it holds. Wilson's meta-analysis found the interference effect to be body-part specific: upper-body strength was not affected by concurrent endurance training. Sabag's 2018 meta-analysis on concurrent strength and HIIT reported the same pattern — lower-body strength attenuated versus strength training alone, upper-body strength unaffected. Endurance volume was a moderating variable: longer and more frequent endurance training correlated with greater reduction in lower-body strength and power.
So loading chest, back, shoulders and arms to 11-12 sets a week while holding legs at 9 heavy sets isn't a compromise — it's the structure the evidence points at.
So loading chest, back, shoulders and arms to 11-12 sets a week while holding legs at 9 heavy sets isn't a compromise — it's the structure the evidence points at.
Wilson et al., J Strength Cond Res 2012 · Sabag et al., 2018
ADJUSTEDThe squat had one more set than the evidence calls for
The ACSM's 2026 Position Stand — synthesising 137 systematic reviews and over 30,000 participants — found voluntary strength enhanced by lifting ≥80% of 1RM, through a complete range of motion, for 2-3 sets, at the beginning of the session, ≥2 sessions per week. Runner-specific reviews converge on the same place: 2-3 sets of 4-5 reps at about 85% 1RM.
My prescription was 4×5. Changed to 3×5 at 82-87% plus one back-off set of 8 — three heavy sets for the strength adaptation, one lighter set for the hypertrophy stimulus, and less leg fatigue heading into a race build. The same Position Stand also found that training to momentary muscle fatigue did not consistently improve outcomes, which is why nothing in this plan asks you to grind.
My prescription was 4×5. Changed to 3×5 at 82-87% plus one back-off set of 8 — three heavy sets for the strength adaptation, one lighter set for the hypertrophy stimulus, and less leg fatigue heading into a race build. The same Position Stand also found that training to momentary muscle fatigue did not consistently improve outcomes, which is why nothing in this plan asks you to grind.
ACSM Position Stand 2026 (137 reviews, >30,000 participants) · Llanos-Lagos et al., Sports Med 2024
CORRECTEDMy doubling rule was backwards for strength
I told you to run first when the run is hard and lift first when it's easy. The strength half of that is wrong. A systematic review with meta-analysis on intra-session sequence found resistance-before-endurance favoured lower-body dynamic strength over ≥5 weeks, with no order effect for hypertrophy, static strength, aerobic capacity or body fat. A separate review found only a small sequence effect, and only when the endurance work was high intensity.
Revised rule: put the session that matters most first. If the tempo is the priority, run first and accept a small strength cost. If the run is easy, lift first — that's now the evidence-backed default rather than just convenience. And note the ACSM finding that strength work belongs at the beginning of a session, which is the same principle at a smaller scale.
Revised rule: put the session that matters most first. If the tempo is the priority, run first and accept a small strength cost. If the run is easy, lift first — that's now the evidence-backed default rather than just convenience. And note the ACSM finding that strength work belongs at the beginning of a session, which is the same principle at a smaller scale.
Eddens et al., Sports Med 2018 (meta-analysis of intra-session sequence) · Frontiers semi-systematic review 2025
AThe AM/PM split is doing real work — not just fitting your schedule
Separating the two modalities by at least six hours meaningfully reduces acute interference. The mechanism is measurable: AMPK rises sharply after high-intensity endurance work and takes at least three hours to return to baseline, while mTORC1 activity from strength training persists around eighteen hours. Doma and colleagues found running economy was still depressed within eight hours of lower-limb strength training.
Your structure puts roughly ten to twelve hours between morning runs and evening lifts, and Monday's lower session sits about twelve hours before Tuesday's easy run — outside that eight-hour window. This was an accident of your work schedule that turns out to be close to optimal.
Your structure puts roughly ten to twelve hours between morning runs and evening lifts, and Monday's lower session sits about twelve hours before Tuesday's easy run — outside that eight-hour window. This was an accident of your work schedule that turns out to be close to optimal.
Robineau et al., J Strength Cond Res 2016 · Doma et al. · Frontiers 2025 mechanistic review
AHeavy and low-rep beats light and high-rep for runners — clearly
A comparison of heavy/low-rep, light/high-rep and complex protocols found the heavy and complex interventions produced superior improvements, while the light/high-rep version produced no distinguishable improvements despite being load-matched. Heavier, lower-rep work also generates less residual fatigue than high-rep sets, which matters when you're running five days a week. This is the direct justification for legs going 5-rep and upper body staying in the 8-12 range.
Runner-specific strength protocol comparisons · Rønnestad & Mujika, Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014
BTwo lifting sessions a week is the demonstrated minimum, and you're above it
Several studies show benefits for runners from twice-weekly strength training, and the ACSM stand specifies ≥2 sessions per week for strength adaptation. You run four — two upper, two lower. The lower frequency is what the running evidence asks for; the upper frequency is free, because that's the half that doesn't interfere.
ACSM Position Stand 2026 · runner strength-training reviews
CWhere this plan is still guessing
Almost all of the concurrent-training literature studies healthy athletes. None of it studies someone with a positive hip impingement test, three months of posterior ankle pain, and an unexamined knee that collapsed inward under load. Every prescription above is population evidence applied to a leg nobody has examined.
The single highest-value action available to you is not in this document. It's one appointment.
The single highest-value action available to you is not in this document. It's one appointment.
—
Race design validated against the endurance literature
Two things this audit changed
The taper was too shallow and has been rebuilt. And what I've been calling "blocks" is traditional periodization, not block periodization — both are supported, but the label was wrong. Details below.
FIXEDThe taper cut too little volume
Bosquet's meta-analysis of 27 studies found the most effective strategy is a two-week taper with training volume reduced 41-60%, without altering intensity or frequency. A later meta-analysis of 14 endurance studies confirmed it: a ≤21-day taper reducing volume 41-60% while maintaining intensity and frequency significantly improved time-trial performance, with the largest effect at 8-14 days. It also found tapering after a pre-taper overload period beat conventional tapering.
My original taper cut only 18% then 25% — well outside the effective range. Rebuilt: week 16 is now −43%, week 17 is −56%, achieved by shortening every run rather than dropping sessions. You still run five to six days and still do half-marathon-pace work, because frequency and intensity are exactly what the evidence says to hold constant. Week 15 stays as the overload peak that makes the taper work.
My original taper cut only 18% then 25% — well outside the effective range. Rebuilt: week 16 is now −43%, week 17 is −56%, achieved by shortening every run rather than dropping sessions. You still run five to six days and still do half-marathon-pace work, because frequency and intensity are exactly what the evidence says to hold constant. Week 15 stays as the overload peak that makes the taper work.
Bosquet et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007 (27 studies) · Wang et al., PLOS ONE 2023 (14 studies)
FIXED"Blocks" was the wrong word for what this plan does
Block periodization means concentrated blocks of a single intensity — typically high-intensity work clustered together. What this plan actually runs is traditional periodization: a gradual progression from high volume toward higher intensity and greater specificity as the race approaches. That's a real distinction, not semantics.
On the merits, block periodization has a small edge: a meta-analysis of 20 studies found small favourable effects for VO2max and maximal power versus traditional. But the authors flagged low methodological quality across the included studies, with a mean PEDro score of 3.7 out of 10. Traditional periodization also remains dominant in high-performance endurance sport. Given you're returning from detraining with three unresolved joint issues, progressive volume-then-intensity is the safer structure regardless — the naming is what needed fixing.
On the merits, block periodization has a small edge: a meta-analysis of 20 studies found small favourable effects for VO2max and maximal power versus traditional. But the authors flagged low methodological quality across the included studies, with a mean PEDro score of 3.7 out of 10. Traditional periodization also remains dominant in high-performance endurance sport. Given you're returning from detraining with three unresolved joint issues, progressive volume-then-intensity is the safer structure regardless — the naming is what needed fixing.
Mølmen, Øfsteng & Rønnestad, Open Access J Sports Med 2019 (20 studies)
CI was too confident that you don't need a long run near race distance
A prospective study of 556 half-marathon runners found that a longest endurance run over 21 km was associated with a faster finish time and less pace decline during the race, as was weekly volume above 32 km. Your peak long run is 90 minutes — roughly 9 miles, well under 21 km.
So capping there is a deliberate trade, not a free lunch. I'm trading some race-day performance for lower injury exposure on a leg with a positive impingement test and an unexamined knee. That's defensible given your situation, but you should know the cost is real rather than imaginary. If the build stays completely clean through week 12, extending the peak long run toward 100-105 minutes is a legitimate option.
So capping there is a deliberate trade, not a free lunch. I'm trading some race-day performance for lower injury exposure on a leg with a positive impingement test and an unexamined knee. That's defensible given your situation, but you should know the cost is real rather than imaginary. If the build stays completely clean through week 12, extending the peak long run toward 100-105 minutes is a legitimate option.
van Poppel et al., Scand J Med Sci Sports 2020 (n=556 half-marathoners)
BThe long run sits marginally above the conventional ceiling
The widely used guideline, attributed to Daniels and Noakes, is that the long run should not exceed 25-30% of weekly volume. At peak, yours is about 9 miles of a 28-mile week — roughly 32%. Marginally over, and worth knowing that the fix is adding weekday easy volume rather than shortening the long run. This is a coaching convention with long practical standing rather than a trial result.
Daniels' Running Formula · convention, widely cited
BYour weekly volume is below the point where returns flatten
Analyses of recreational endurance performance find weekly mileage and mean training pace explain most of the variance, with the improvement curve flattening past roughly 60 km per week — about 37 miles. Peaking at 28 means more volume would still buy you performance. It's being held back for injury reasons, not because you've hit diminishing returns. Another reason the January strength block matters: that's where base volume can grow without a race deadline forcing it.
Midgley et al., Sports Medicine 2007 · training-index regression analyses
CPredicting your half from a 2-mile trial stretches the formula
The pace calculator uses Riegel's power law with the standard 1.06 exponent. It's the most widely used prediction model and holds up reasonably across standard distances, but it's most accurate when the input and target distances are close — typically within ±3-5% for adjacent distances like 5K to 10K. From 2 miles to 13.1 is a 6.5× extrapolation, which is exactly where accuracy degrades. Overall accuracy of this class of calculator is often cited around 80%, meaning roughly one runner in five misses meaningfully.
Two adjustments worth making: treat the projection as a range of several minutes, not a number, and at week 12 run a 10K rather than a 2-mile trial. Predicting a half from a 10K is a much shorter extrapolation and the number you set your goal from should be the most reliable one you'll get.
Two adjustments worth making: treat the projection as a range of several minutes, not a number, and at week 12 run a 10K rather than a 2-mile trial. Predicting a half from a 10K is a much shorter extrapolation and the number you set your goal from should be the most reliable one you'll get.
Riegel, American Scientist 1981 · Vickers & Vertosick, BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2016
BTwo hard sessions per week with the rest easy
Holds up. A randomised trial in recreational runners found a polarised distribution improved 10km time more than a threshold-weighted one over ten weeks, and supporting work found polarised distributions produced larger gains despite lower total volume. Your split runs close to 80/20 through the speed and race-specific blocks. The caveat stands: these trials are small, short, and mostly in already-training runners.
Muñoz et al. 2014 · Stöggl & Sperlich, Front Physiol 2014
AHills for a hilly course, and strength work to survive it
Central Park's 470-590 feet of climbing across Harlem Hill twice and Cat Hill three times makes the hill block course-specific rather than merely knee-sparing. And the strongest injury-prevention finding in the whole document applies directly here: strength training reduced overuse injuries by nearly half in randomised trials, outperforming stretching and proprioceptive work, with a dose-response relationship. Four lift days through a race build is the evidence-backed choice, not a compromise.
Lauersen et al., Br J Sports Med 2014 & 2018
CDeload every fourth week
No controlled evidence that a fixed four-week cycle beats autoregulating by feel. It's in the plan as scheduled insurance against accumulated joint load, and because it gives the testing protocol a natural home on fresh legs. Convention, honestly labelled.
Convention, not trial data
CTwo weeks of easy running after the race
The "one easy day per mile raced" heuristic has no trial behind it. What is established is that prolonged running measurably degrades the determinants of endurance performance — a study in trained marathon runners found VO2peak dropped 3.1% after 90 minutes and 7.1% after 120 minutes of running, with running economy deteriorating progressively. Recovery is clearly needed; the specific fourteen-day number is convention.
Prolonged running determinants study, 2025 · heuristic otherwise
Corrections things this plan had wrong
FIXEDThe 10% weekly mileage rule was in this plan and shouldn't have been
It has no trial support. A randomised controlled trial of 532 novice runners found no injury difference between a 13-week program using 10% weekly increases and an 8-week program progressing far faster. A separate cohort found uninjured runners averaged ~22% weekly increases — double the rule. The rule appears to originate in 1980s coaching convention, not research.
What replaced it: the Garmin-RUNSAFE cohort followed 5,205 runners over 18 months across 588,000 sessions and 1,800 injuries. Week-to-week mileage change predicted injury poorly. Single-session spikes did. Exceeding 110% of your longest run in the prior 30 days raised overuse injury risk by roughly 64%. Your calendar now builds the long run against your recent longest run, not against last week's total.
What replaced it: the Garmin-RUNSAFE cohort followed 5,205 runners over 18 months across 588,000 sessions and 1,800 injuries. Week-to-week mileage change predicted injury poorly. Single-session spikes did. Exceeding 110% of your longest run in the prior 30 days raised overuse injury risk by roughly 64%. Your calendar now builds the long run against your recent longest run, not against last week's total.
Buist et al., GRONORUN RCT · Nielsen et al., Br J Sports Med 2025 (n=5,205) · Nielsen et al., JOSPT 2014
FIXEDI attributed your post-injury weakness to glute inhibition. The literature is about quadriceps
Arthrogenic muscle inhibition is well documented and specific: joint effusion causes neural inhibition that prevents full quadriceps activation. Experimental effusion in healthy volunteers produced immediate drops in quadriceps activation, knee extensor moment and ground reaction force during stair descent. Post-surgical knee extensor torque can fall 80-90%. Residual inhibition has been documented up to four years after the initial trauma.
This matters for you in two ways. It's a stronger mechanistic account of why that leg is behaving differently than anything I offered before. And AMI is associated with impaired dynamic knee stability — which is a plausible route to the inward tracking you saw on stairs. Glute involvement is still likely but it's inference; quadriceps inhibition is the documented finding.
This matters for you in two ways. It's a stronger mechanistic account of why that leg is behaving differently than anything I offered before. And AMI is associated with impaired dynamic knee stability — which is a plausible route to the inward tracking you saw on stairs. Glute involvement is still likely but it's inference; quadriceps inhibition is the documented finding.
Palmieri-Smith et al., Clin Biomech 2014 · Rice & McNair, Semin Arthritis Rheum 2010 · Arthritis Res Ther 2014
Lifting Mon · Tue · Thu · Sat
A10+ sets per muscle per week is optimal — why you now lift four times, not twice
An umbrella review of the hypertrophy literature concluded at least ten weekly sets per muscle is optimal. A separate systematic review put the band at 12-20 sets for trained young men, while finding no significant difference between moderate and high volume for quads and biceps specifically. Your current numbers — 8 to 12 across muscles — sit inside that band. The two-session version sat below it.
Frontiers in Sports & Active Living 2022 umbrella review · Baz-Valle et al., 2022
AFour hard sets per muscle per week still grows muscle — your bad-week fallback
A narrative review established a minimum effective dose of about four working sets per muscle per week, performed close to failure, at loads corresponding to 6-15 repetitions. For strength specifically, 2-3 sets per exercise per week at 70-85% of one-rep max is sufficient. This is why dropping to two sessions during a brutal quarter isn't abandoning the plan.
Iversen et al., Sports Medicine 2021 · Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
AStopping 1-3 reps short of failure is enough
A meta-regression across 55 hypertrophy and 67 strength studies found growth improved as sets got closer to failure, but the slope flattened past about 2 reps in reserve — and proximity to failure did not help strength. An 8-week randomised trial in trained adults found similar quadriceps hypertrophy whether sets went to true failure or stopped at 1-2 RIR. Practical translation: 1-3 RIR on hypertrophy work, 3-5 on heavy strength sets, true failure rarely if ever.
Robinson et al., Sports Medicine 2024 · Refalo et al., J Sports Sci 2024
BTwice-weekly frequency per muscle — a defensible default, not a proven optimum
Frequency effects independent of total volume remain genuinely unsettled. A 2024 dose-response meta-regression across 67 studies and 2,058 participants flagged the frequency evidence as mixed. Upper and lower are both hit twice here because it distributes volume sensibly, not because 2× is established as superior.
Pelland et al., resistance training dose-response meta-regression 2024
CDeload every 8-12 weeks
Widely practised, thinly evidenced. There's no strong controlled data showing scheduled deloads outperform simply autoregulating by feel in recreational lifters. It's in the plan as cheap insurance against accumulated joint stress given your hip and knee, not because the research demands it.
Convention, not trial data
Legs specifically why lower stayed 2×
AStrength training is the single best-evidenced way to not get injured while running
A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials found strength training reduced acute injuries by roughly a third and nearly halved overuse injuries — outperforming stretching and proprioceptive work. A follow-up analysis reported a relative risk around 0.34 for strength-based prevention programs, with a dose-response relationship: more strength training, more protection. Given you're adding running volume onto a leg with an unresolved knee, this is the strongest single argument in the document for keeping two lower days.
Lauersen et al., Br J Sports Med 2014 · Lauersen et al., Br J Sports Med 2018
AHeavy lifting makes you faster — and running economy is a lower-body adaptation
A systematic review and meta-analysis found heavy resistance training improved running economy more than plyometric training, with a larger effect on time-trial performance as well. A review across 31 studies and 652 runners found high-load work at or above 80% of one-rep max improves economy, particularly at faster speeds. The protocols producing these effects ran 2-3 sessions per week for 8-12 weeks — which is the dose your Tuesday and Saturday sessions hit and a single weekly lower day would not.
Eihara et al., Sports Med Open 2022 · Llanos-Lagos et al., Sports Medicine 2024
BRunning interferes with leg growth more than cycling does
A large meta-analysis found concurrent training did not compromise hypertrophy or maximal strength overall, with interference showing up mainly in power and explosive strength. But modality sub-analyses have repeatedly found running produces more interference than cycling, plausibly through eccentric muscle damage. A fibre-level meta-analysis reached the same conclusion for type I fibres. Two consequences in your plan: legs get their own dedicated volume rather than relying on running, and the hard session defaults to hills rather than flat intervals.
Schumann et al. (43 studies) · Wilson et al. 2012 · Murach et al. 2022
Running AM slots · Sunday long run
ASingle-run spikes predict injury; weekly totals mostly don't
See Corrections above. The operative number is 110% of your longest run in the past 30 days. This is the one hard ceiling in the running plan.
Nielsen et al., Br J Sports Med 2025 (n=5,205, 588,000 sessions)
BMostly-easy intensity distribution beats mostly-moderate
A randomised trial of 30 recreational runners over 10 weeks compared a polarised distribution (roughly 77/3/20) against a threshold-weighted one. Both improved 10km time; the polarised group improved more. Supporting work in cyclists found polarised distributions produced larger gains in peak power and lactate threshold despite lower total volume. Caveats worth keeping: the trials are small, short, and mostly in runners already training — and at least one analysis found a threshold-focused group improved running economy more.
Muñoz et al. 2014 · Stöggl & Sperlich 2014
CHill repeats as the default hard session
The reasoning is sound but assembled rather than tested: uphill running reduces impact loading relative to flat running, running interferes with strength adaptation more than cycling does, and downhill running produces the highest eccentric knee loads. No trial has compared hill repeats against flat intervals for someone in your specific situation. It's the option that stacks the fewest known risks, not a validated prescription.
Inference from impact-loading and interference literature
Mobility and why there's no long stretching block
AFull-range lifting improves flexibility about as much as stretching
A meta-analysis of 11 randomised controlled trials with 452 participants found no significant difference between strength training and stretching for range of motion, across hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, trunk and cervical spine, with sub-group analyses by active versus passive ROM showing the same. A 2024 controlled trial matched training time and stretch intensity between groups: both improved sit-and-reach equally, and only the lifting group also gained strength. This is why your RDLs and squats are counted as mobility work in this plan.
Afonso et al., Healthcare 2021 (11 RCTs, n=452) · Warneke et al., BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2024
BStatic stretching after training, dynamic before
Pre-exercise static stretching produces a temporary reduction in force output; durable range-of-motion gains come from static or PNF work performed post-exercise or in standalone sessions. The acute decrement is small enough to be irrelevant except before a heavy top set — which is why your pre-squat calf and hamstring work stays in despite breaking the rule.
Konrad et al., Journal of Sport and Health Science 2024
Hip Tier 1 · squat rules · the gate
CConservative management works — but surgery worked better in the largest trial
UK FASHIoN randomised 348 patients with femoroacetabular impingement to hip arthroscopy or a supervised physiotherapist-led program. Both improved substantially at 12 months. Arthroscopy improved more, by 6.8 points on the iHOT-33 — above the 6.1-point threshold for clinical significance. An Australian trial found a larger between-group difference of 14 points, though its primary cartilage-metabolism outcome showed no difference.
Stated plainly: this plan is the arm that lost. It's still a reasonable approach for an undiagnosed hip you're managing yourself, but the best randomised evidence on your presentation favours finding out what's actually there.
Stated plainly: this plan is the arm that lost. It's still a reasonable approach for an undiagnosed hip you're managing yourself, but the best randomised evidence on your presentation favours finding out what's actually there.
Griffin et al., The Lancet 2018 (n=348) · Australian FASHIoN, BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021
BFADIR rules out better than it rules in
Flexion-adduction-internal-rotation is the standard clinical manoeuvre for anterior hip impingement. A negative test makes the diagnosis unlikely; a positive test raises probability without confirming anything. Your positive-right, negative-left result is meaningful as an asymmetry finding and not as a diagnosis.
Standard orthopaedic assessment literature
CTime-under-provocation is why reps are allowed and holds aren't
No study has tested this. It's an inference from one observation of yours — that pain arrives after roughly five seconds in the position. A squat rep spends under a second at depth; a 30-second hold spends thirty. The logic is clean and the risk is low, but you should know it's reasoning from a single data point, not literature.
Inference from your reported onset delay
BCalf and hamstring prep before squatting
There's no trial showing this resolves hip impingement pain. There is a trial of one: you did it and the pain went during the session. In a plan otherwise built on population averages, a repeatable result in the actual person is worth more than most of the citations on this page — provided it keeps repeating. That's what the weekly log is for.
Your own result, n=1
Desk three breaks a day
BInterrupting sitting has measurable acute effects
A randomised crossover trial had adults complete 6-hour conditions of prolonged sitting, prolonged standing, or sitting broken by 2 minutes of walking every 30 minutes. The activity-break condition raised popliteal artery blood flow by around 80% and shear rate by around 72% at 60 minutes, sustained across the full 6 hours. Prolonged standing raised blood flow only transiently. Separate work found activity breaks did not trigger compensatory eating.
Honest caveat: these are acute physiological outcomes. Workplace RCTs on sit-stand desks have often failed to show meaningful change in longer-term health markers. The breaks are worth doing; the case for them is stronger on mechanism than on hard outcomes.
Honest caveat: these are acute physiological outcomes. Workplace RCTs on sit-stand desks have often failed to show meaningful change in longer-term health markers. The breaks are worth doing; the case for them is stronger on mechanism than on hard outcomes.
Peddie et al., PLOS ONE 2021 · Bailey et al. · sit-stand desk cluster RCTs
Nutrition
A~1g protein per pound preserves lean mass in a deficit
Meta-analytic consensus for active individuals in a caloric deficit. Without adequate protein and resistance training, a substantial share of weight lost comes from lean mass rather than fat.
Phillips & Van Loon 2011 and subsequent systematic reviews
CDon't cut while the hip is symptomatic
Reasonable, not proven. Energy deficit impairs recovery and tissue repair in general, but no trial has shown that deficit worsens outcomes specifically in hip impingement. The cost of waiting is a few months of not losing weight; the cost of being wrong the other way is slower resolution. That asymmetry is the argument, not the data.
General recovery literature · inference
The premise underneath everything
CAdherence beats optimisation
This is why Wednesday and Friday stay empty, why AM runs are labelled optional, and why the fallback on a bad week is two sessions rather than four. It is also the least rigorously supported claim in this document. Nobody runs ten-year randomised trials on training volume. It's an inference from dropout rates and from the flattening shape of the dose-response curve — a reasonable one, but an inference. Worth knowing that the load-bearing assumption of the whole structure is the softest thing on this page.
Inference, not a controlled result
CThe thing no citation can fix
Everything above is population evidence applied to a leg that hasn't been examined. You have a hip with a positive impingement test, an ankle painful in plantar flexion for over three months, and a knee that visibly tracked inward under load after previously requiring aspiration. The literature on arthrogenic muscle inhibition explains how one knee injury could plausibly produce all three. It does not tell you whether that's what happened in your case. One appointment and an X-ray would answer more than this entire page.
—