Your faculty doesn’t do research, or research on that topic? If the latter, if you feel that you have a good study in mind, write a proposal for funds. I am not in a bio-related field, but if i was, i would consider writing one.
If you look, you’ll find those references! 
Not completely sure of what you mean here, but one thought comes to my mind anyway: from my experience any training program needs a “spine”,a basal level of stimuli which “sets the tone” of the general adaptation processes of the organism,WITHOUT placing any further demand on adaptation reserves-as any acute somministration of any stimuli (hi or low intensity does not really matter here) would.
Improved recovery might well in this light be the acute effect of re-establishing and possibly even expanding one’s adaptation energy pool.
Have a look at Charlie’s graph of how the volumes of different components progress and interact.Have a look at Arthur Lydiard’s programs.
I have come to believe that the relatively “chronic” and stable character of Charlie’s Tempo as well as Lydiard’s long runs is the key,more than any specific characteristic of their design, and something well worth discussing.
And this relates to a previous post of yours stating that management of low intensity components are far more important than assumed.
I believe this is something also leading to a raised minimum adaptation level a la M. Burt, no? Is this roughly your point?
Thanks!
My faculty do “some” research, and fortunally thing are going better, so mybe with an agreement with my proffesors this study could come in research program. Tnx for the tip quark.
Pakewi, here is what I ment (so maybe you already answered in your post):
- You got sprinter A who dont do recovery runs (tempo) in his preparation period, just high int. runs. After a meeting (race), to speed up his recovery, he started doing them.
- You got sprinter B who continuosly and with stable manner do tempo runs in whole preparatory period, but after a meeting (race) he just passively rested home.
- You got sprinter C, who continuosly and with stable volume do tempo runs during preparatory period and after a reace he continue doing them.
The question here is who will recover first after a race, and who will recover last? A,B,C?
Does doing recovery runs (tempo) continuously and with stable volume (during GPP and SPP)make some profound (chronical) effect to allow you to recover faster after a race? Or just one session of recovery run have acute recoverying effects after a race without continuosly doing them in GPP and SPP?
Does a continuosly and stable doing of recovery runs improve your recovery ability due increase in capilar density etc. Richard Gibbens speculated that recovery ability is always the same and cannot be improved (or I missunderstanded):
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/Running%20and%20Muscle%20Damage.htm
Yes for the first part while I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by “raised minimum adaptation level”. What are you referring to?