01 · Overview
A traditional plan is written once, on day zero, for an athlete who never misses a run, never gets sick and absorbs every session as intended. Within days reality drifts from it: a missed session is dropped or crammed into the weekend, and the calendar keeps climbing towards a peak the athlete is no longer on course for. Roen closes the loop. The plan is re-solved from what you actually ran.
- What the engine decides. Everything with a number on it: how far each week goes, which day carries the long run and the quality sessions, every pace and heart-rate ceiling, when to cut back, how a missed run or a sore calf changes the week, the race-day pace and the goal readiness score.
- What the AI does. It reads what you write: a debrief note, a request to move a session, a description of your running. It turns the sentence into a change, and the engine then checks that change against the same rules as everything else and may refuse it. If the language model is unavailable, a plain parser reads the sentence instead.
- What the AI does not do. It never chooses a session, a distance, a pace or a score. When it explains a plan, it is handed the engine's figures and told to quote nothing else.
- Same data, same plan. The engine runs on fixed rules with no randomness: the same runs and the same goal always give the same plan. A plan changes only when the data does, so every change can be traced to a run, a debrief or an edit.
Each section below gives the rule in plain words, the number the engine uses and its source, then a worked example. The examples follow one athlete: a marathoner with a 4:16 /km threshold pace, 50 km a week, 6 running days and 16 weeks to race day.
02 · Load and fitness
Every run is scored for load: its duration times how hard it was against your own threshold, so one hour at threshold scores 100. The scores feed a fitness and fatigue model. Fitness builds slowly and fades slowly, fatigue rises and falls within days, and their difference is how fresh you are. The plan leads each day: tomorrow's session is the plan's own, eased to an easy run only when the balance shows real overreach or another hard session sits within 24 hours. It is never made harder.
- The rule
- Fitness is the long average of daily load, fatigue the short one. A planned session is eased, never raised, when you are deep in fatigue.
- The numbers
- Fatigue averages over 7 days, fitness over 42. A session is eased below a balance of −30.
- Source
- Banister 1975; Banister 1991.
A missed day is measured, not made up. Missed easy kilometres go to the easy days that have room, within the week's own total; the week never grows. A skipped long run is not added to other days, and a run cut short is not chased. A move is refused when it would put two hard days back to back or quality on the day before or after the long run. Gaps of up to 4 weeks are understood. After an illness the first 2 runs back are easy, and after 10 days or more the engine offers to rebuild the plan and re-checks the goal.
- The rule
- Time off is read as time off: fitness decays, and the plan is rebuilt from the new level rather than resumed from the old one.
- The numbers
- Gaps up to 4 weeks; 2 easy runs after an illness; a rebuild offered after 10 days.
- Source
- Coyle 1984; Mujika and Padilla 2000.
03 · Perceived effort
A run without heart rate or a usable pace still counts. The debrief asks how hard it felt on a 1 to 10 scale, and the engine turns the rating into an intensity on the same threshold scale as every other run. A rating never replaces a heart-rate or pace score, so a run is never counted twice.
- The rule
- Session load = minutes × intensity², with the intensity read from the rating you give.
- The numbers
- A rating of 7 is threshold: one hour scores 100. A rating of 3 is an intensity of 0.7.
- Source
- Foster 2001.
04 · Hills
Climbing costs more energy than flat running and descending saves some, up to a point. The engine prices every run, every personal best and every race course with one cost curve for running on a slope, so a hilly easy run is not mistaken for a fast one and a hilly 10k counts for what it was worth. Steep descents earn no extra credit: past the curve's cheapest point, braking costs as much as it saves.
- The rule
- Effort on a slope is priced by the energy cost of running at that gradient, measured against the flat.
- The numbers
- A 4% climb costs 24% more than the flat, 8% costs 51% more. A descent of 8% saves 35%, and anything steeper is priced as 8%.
- Source
- Minetti 2002.
05 · Paces and heart rate
Every training pace is a fixed multiple of your threshold pace, calibrated against Daniels' tables, so the paces move together when the threshold does. Easy, marathon-pace and tempo work also carry a heart-rate ceiling from your heart-rate reserve. Most of the week stays easy: the hard work is held to a small share of the week's distance and time.
- The rule
- Paces come from threshold, heart-rate ceilings from heart-rate reserve, and most of the week is easy.
- The numbers
- Easy runs stay under 72% of heart-rate reserve, marathon pace under 80%, tempo under 88%. Quality work is at most 18% of the week's distance and hard time at most 10% of its duration.
- Source
- Daniels and Gilbert 1979; Karvonen 1957; Tanaka 2001; Seiler and Kjerland 2006; Seiler 2010; Helgerud 2007; Haugen 2022; Knopp 2024.
06 · Weekly progression and injury risk
Volume climbs in small weekly steps with a lighter week at regular intervals, and the long run grows on its own, slower ladder. Large studies of runners link injuries to two things the engine caps: a weekly distance that rises too fast, and a single run much longer than any in the previous month. Both are held regardless of the goal.
- The rule
- Weekly volume climbs gradually with regular cutbacks; the long run never jumps far past the longest recent run.
- The numbers
- At most 8% more a week (10% in a marathon block); every 4th week a cutback of 25%, and at most 20% back up after it. The long run grows by at most 10% over the longest before it, is at most 33% of the week, and tops out at 180 minutes or 32–34 km.
- Source
- Nielsen 2014; Damsted 2019; Frandsen 2025; Buist 2008; Ramskov 2018.
Each week also shows a load-ramp indicator, read from the last week's load against the last six weeks'. It is shown as low, moderate or high and never as a percentage, because it is not an injury probability and its coefficients are not fitted to injury data. The ratio comes from team-sport research (Gabbett 2016; Williams 2017), and in runners the evidence for it is weak: large cohorts found no rise in injuries with a higher ratio, or even fewer (Nakaoka 2021; Frandsen 2025), and its predictive value is debated (Impellizzeri 2020). The caps above do the work; the indicator only shows how steep a week is.
07 · Pain monitoring
When a debrief or a message mentions pain, the engine asks how bad it is rather than guessing. A niggle changes nothing; the same site again within 10 days gets a note. Sore or sharp opens a load-shielded window: the next 3 days become short, flat easy runs, and the kilometres removed are not moved elsewhere, since moving them would bring back the load the window exists to remove. Each morning a pain check decides the day, and a failed check turns it into rest.
- The rule
- Keep running while pain stays low during the run and settles by the next morning; stop when it does not.
- The numbers
- 3 shielded days of at most 35 minutes, at most 50 m of climb and 50 m of descent, no strides. The check: no more than 3/10 during the run, back to baseline by the next morning; 5 × 45 s isometric holds. Still a problem at the end: an active injury, intervals out, 3 more days.
- Source
- Silbernagel 2007.
08 · Race projection
Your recent races and threshold efforts give a 10k speed. The engine scales it to the race distance with a power law: the longer the race, the more speed you give up. Below the marathon the exponent is fixed. In the marathon it depends on ability, since slower runners lose more over the distance, and a recent long run of 26 km or more earns part of it back, all of it from 34 km.
- The rule
- Race time = 10k time × (race distance ÷ 10 km) to a fixed power, with the marathon's power set by ability and recent long runs.
- The numbers
- An exponent of 1.06 below the marathon. In the marathon, 0.06 above 1 for the fastest runners and more for slower ones; a long run credited from 26 km, in full at 34 km.
- Source
- Riegel 1981.
09 · Durability and goal readiness
Durability is the ability to hold output deep into a long effort. Late in a race, low-volume runners slow more than their short-distance times suggest, so the engine takes a fade off the projected speed that shrinks as weekly volume rises. The distance also sets a minimum peak week and long run, and the goal's readiness score checks both against what the plan can deliver in the weeks available.
- The rule
- The marathon fade shrinks with volume; the race needs a minimum peak week and long run, reached at a safe rate.
- The numbers
- A marathon asks for a 48 km peak week and a 29 km long run, reached at no more than 12% a week. The fade is 8.2% of speed at 30 km a week and 3.4% at 70.
- Source
- Maunder 2021; Fokkema 2020; Doherty 2020; Nielsen 2014.
Goal readiness is two scores on one 0 to 100 scale: Pace, whether the goal time is within reach on race day, and Durability, whether the plan reaches the volume and long runs the distance needs. The score shown is the weaker of the two, so the number, the verdict and the limiting score always agree:
- On track. 70 or more.
- A stretch. From 40 to 70: within reach, not yet on track.
- Out of reach. Below 40.
Goal readiness is a model estimate. It is not a guarantee, and not the probability of finishing in the goal time.
10 · Taper and after the race
Before the race the volume comes down and the intensity stays: cutting the quality as well costs fitness the taper exists to keep. After a marathon the engine does not hand you a new plan the next day. A short return to running leads into an optional maintenance block that holds fitness at lower volume until the next goal.
- The rule
- Taper by cutting volume, not intensity. After the race, rest, then easy running, then quality, then a lighter maintenance block.
- The numbers
- A 3-week marathon taper. After a marathon: 2 days of rest, strides from day 10, quality from day 15, the next block from day 21. Maintenance runs 12 weeks at 65% of the block's last four weeks before the taper, the long run at 70% of the block's longest.
- Source
- Mujika and Padilla 2003; Bosquet 2007; Smyth and Lawlor 2021; Warhol 1985; Martinez-Navarro 2021; Hickson 1981; Hickson 1982; Hickson 1985; Houmard 1990; Spiering 2021.
References
The studies behind the rules above, grouped by section. Background reading the engine does not rely on is left out.
Load, fitness and time off
- Banister EW, Calvert TW, Savage MV, Bach T. A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust J Sports Med 1975;7:57–61.
- Banister EW. Modeling elite athletic performance. In: MacDougall JD, Wenger HA, Green HJ, eds. Physiological Testing of the High-Performance Athlete. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics; 1991:403–424.
- Coyle EF, Martin WH, Sinacore DR, et al. Time course of loss of adaptations after stopping prolonged intense endurance training. J Appl Physiol 1984;57(6):1857–1864. doi:10.1152/jappl.1984.57.6.1857
- Mujika I, Padilla S. Detraining: loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part I: short term insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med 2000;30(2):79–87. doi:10.2165/00007256-200030020-00002
- Mujika I, Padilla S. Detraining: loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part II: long term insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med 2000;30(3):145–154. doi:10.2165/00007256-200030030-00001
Perceived effort
- Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001;15(1):109–115. doi:10.1519/00124278-200102000-00019
Hills
- Minetti AE, Moia C, Roi GS, Susta D, Ferretti G. Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes. J Appl Physiol 2002;93(3):1039–1046. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01177.2001
Paces, heart rate and sessions
- Daniels J, Gilbert J. Oxygen Power: Performance Tables for Distance Runners. Tempe, AZ; 1979.
- Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training characteristics of world-class distance runners: an integration of scientific literature and results-proven practice. Sports Med Open 2022;8:46. doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00438-7
- Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, et al. Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39(4):665–671. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3180304570
- Karvonen MJ, Kentala E, Mustala O. The effects of training on heart rate; a longitudinal study. Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn 1957;35(3):307–315.
- Knopp M, Appelhans D, Schönfelder M, Seiler S, Wackerhage H. Quantitative analysis of 92 12-week sub-elite marathon training plans. Sports Med Open 2024;10:50. doi:10.1186/s40798-024-00717-5
- Seiler KS, Kjerland GØ. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006;16(1):49–56. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00418.x
- Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010;5(3):276–291. doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
- Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37(1):153–156. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01054-8
Progression and injury risk
- Buist I, Bredeweg SW, van Mechelen W, et al. No effect of a graded training program on the number of running-related injuries in novice runners: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2008;36(1):33–39. doi:10.1177/0363546507307505
- Damsted C, Parner ET, Sørensen H, Malisoux L, Hulme A, Nielsen RO. The association between changes in weekly running distance and running-related injury: preparing for a half marathon. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(4):230–238. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8541
- Frandsen JSB, Hulme A, Parner ET, et al. How much running is too much? Identifying high-risk running sessions in a 5200-person cohort study. Br J Sports Med 2025;59(17):1203–1210. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2024-109380
- Gabbett TJ. The training–injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med 2016;50(5):273–280. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788
- Impellizzeri FM, Tenan MS, Kempton T, Novak A, Coutts AJ. Acute:chronic workload ratio: conceptual issues and fundamental pitfalls. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020;15(6):907–913. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2019-0864
- Nakaoka G, Barboza SD, Verhagen E, van Mechelen W, Hespanhol L. The association between the acute:chronic workload ratio and running-related injuries in Dutch runners: a prospective cohort study. Sports Med 2021;51(11):2437–2447. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01483-0
- Nielsen RO, Parner ET, Nohr EA, et al. Excessive progression in weekly running distance and risk of running-related injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(10):739–747. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5164
- Ramskov D, Rasmussen S, Sørensen H, et al. Run Clever: no difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2018;4(1):e000333. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000333
- Williams S, West S, Cross MJ, Stokes KA. Better way to determine the acute:chronic workload ratio? Br J Sports Med 2017;51(3):209–210. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096589
Pain monitoring
- Silbernagel KG, Thomeé R, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Continued sports activity, using a pain-monitoring model, during rehabilitation in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Am J Sports Med 2007;35(6):897–906. doi:10.1177/0363546506298279
Race projection and durability
- Doherty C, Keogh A, Davenport J, Lawlor A, Smyth B, Caulfield B. An evaluation of the training determinants of marathon performance: a meta-analysis with meta-regression. J Sci Med Sport 2020;23(2):182–188. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2019.09.013
- Fokkema T, van Damme AADN, Fornerod MWJ, et al. Training for a (half-)marathon: training volume and longest endurance run related to performance and running injuries. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2020;30(9):1692–1704. doi:10.1111/sms.13725
- Maunder E, Seiler S, Mildenhall MJ, Kilding AE, Plews DJ. The importance of ‘durability’ in the physiological profiling of endurance athletes. Sports Med 2021;51(8):1619–1628. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01459-0
- Riegel PS. Athletic records and human endurance. Am Sci 1981;69(3):285–290.
Taper and recovery
- Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39(8):1358–1365. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
- Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA. Reduced training frequencies and maintenance of increased aerobic power. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1981;13(1):13–16. doi:10.1249/00005768-198101000-00011
- Hickson RC, Kanakis C, Davis JR, Moore AM, Rich S. Reduced training duration effects on aerobic power, endurance, and cardiac growth. J Appl Physiol 1982;53(1):225–229. doi:10.1152/jappl.1982.53.1.225
- Hickson RC, Foster C, Pollock ML, Galassi TM, Rich S. Reduced training intensities and loss of aerobic power, endurance, and cardiac growth. J Appl Physiol 1985;58(2):492–499. doi:10.1152/jappl.1985.58.2.492
- Houmard JA, Costill DL, Mitchell JB, et al. Reduced training maintains performance in distance runners. Int J Sports Med 1990;11(1):46–52. doi:10.1055/s-2007-1024761
- Martínez-Navarro I, Montoya-Vieco A, Collado E, Hernando B, Hernando C. The week after running a marathon: effects of running vs elliptical training vs resting on neuromuscular performance and muscle damage recovery. Eur J Sport Sci 2021;21(12):1668–1674. doi:10.1080/17461391.2020.1857441
- Mujika I, Padilla S. Scientific bases for precompetition tapering strategies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35(7):1182–1187. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000074448.73931.11
- Smyth B, Lawlor A. Longer disciplined tapers improve marathon performance for recreational runners. Front Sports Act Living 2021;3:735220. doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.735220
- Spiering BA, Mujika I, Sharp MA, Foulis SA. Maintaining physical performance: the minimal dose of exercise needed to preserve endurance and strength over time. J Strength Cond Res 2021;35(5):1449–1458. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003964
- Warhol MJ, Siegel AJ, Evans WJ, Silverman LM. Skeletal muscle injury and repair in marathon runners after competition. Am J Pathol 1985;118(2):331–339.
Roen is a training tool, not medical advice. The cut-offs it uses start from population research and are personalised to the athlete over time; they are not universal constants.