Running Spreadsheets: Why They Don't Work for Everyone

As your running coach, I want to be very direct: ready-made spreadsheets don't serve all runners equally.

They may seem practical — download a PDF and follow week by week — but science shows that truly effective training is individualized.

1. Running is an individual response sport

One of the basic principles of sports training is biological individuality.

Two runners of the same age, same gender and same training time can have totally different responses to the same stimulus.

A 2014 study followed 61 runners subjected to the same standardized 12-week interval training program. The result varied drastically: some had +40% VO₂max gain, while others barely improved.

In 2022, Finnish researchers compared recreational runners who followed a fixed spreadsheet versus training adjusted daily by recovery status (using heart rate and HRV). After 8 weeks, the spreadsheet group had +5% improvement, while the individualized group achieved +12%.

2. The risk of overload and injury

Traditional spreadsheets often don't consider:

• Training history
• Age
• Body composition
• Recovery level

What science shows:

A 2021 systematic review, with more than 10,000 runners, pointed to an annual injury incidence above 40%, with the most affected regions being knee, calf and Achilles tendon.

In a 2023 prospective study with 258 recreational runners, 51% developed injuries in 12 months. The main risk factors were: previous injury history, marathon training and unstable biomechanical patterns (such as lateral trunk drops during running).

Conclusion: almost half of runners get injured in a year. Fixed spreadsheets sell evolution, but ignore individual risks, while adapted training significantly reduces the chances of overload.

3. Lack of dynamic adjustment

Training isn't static. Bad days happen: sleep, stress, menstrual cycle, colds… and fixed spreadsheets don't react to these variables.

What science shows:

A study with elite players showed that the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) was one of the best indicators of internal load and overload risk, surpassing external measures like heart rate, proving that how the body feels matters as much as the numbers.

More recently, a 2021 study followed adults in a 6-week aerobic training program and observed that some had large VO₂max gains (on average +15%) and power, while others improved only in metabolic efficiency, without VO₂max change. That is, equal stimuli generated different adaptations.

Practical conclusion: without continuous feedback, spreadsheets can't adapt to what you feel and respond to. Dynamic training, which integrates objective data (pace, heart rate) and subjective data (RPE, fatigue), is the path to safe progress.

4. The value of personalized and adaptive training

Science recommends training models that consider:

• Volume adjusted to history
• Intensity based on individual heart rate zones or pace
• Continuous feedback (wearables, perceived exertion, recovery)

Evidence shows that individualized training maximizes gains and reduces injury risk.

In addition, recent reviews confirm that well-structured interval training generates more expressive physiological adaptations than continuous training equal for everyone.

5. Where technology enters this equation

Today we have tools — like RAI — that use data from:

• Previous pace and distances
• Heart rate and estimated VO₂
• Training history and recovery

…to dynamically adjust each session, ensuring safe progression and real adaptation to your body.

Traditional spreadsheets can be a starting point, but they're not the smartest — nor the safest — path.

Science proves: what works is individualization, monitoring and continuous adaptation.

Instead of sticking to a fixed PDF, try training with an approach that understands you as a unique person, and uses technology in favor of your body — adjusting each step so you run farther, faster and with less risk. Try training with Rai!

References