Modeling the Training Process to Support Physical Fitness and Movement Performance in Triathletes
Регина Ниязова · Avrasya Spor Bilimleri ve Eğitim Dergisi · 2026
The preparation of triathletes requires the coordinated development of swimming, cycling, running, general physical capacities, and discipline-specific technical skills. Contemporary endurance-training research emphasizes progressive specialization, systematic training-load management, and the integration of general and sport-specific preparation throughout the annual cycle.
Purpose: . The
Aim: of this study was to develop and evaluate a training process model for supporting physical fitness and movement performance in triathletes through the integration of developmental and lead-up exercise complexes and segment-specific training programs into general physical preparation.
Methods: . A one-year controlled quasi-experimental study involved 20 male triathletes aged 18–23 years who held Category I or Candidate Master of Sport qualifications at baseline. Participants were assigned by a matched-group procedure to an experimental group (EG; n = 10) and a control group (CG; n = 10), with matching based on age, sports qualification, training experience, and baseline physical performance; no randomization was applied. Outcomes included the 60 m sprint, 500 m swimming test, 3000 m run, shoulder mobility, and standing long jump. Within-group pre–post changes were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests and Cohen’s d_z. Direct between-group comparisons of change scores were used to evaluate the comparative intervention effect, with Hedges’ g and 95% confidence intervals reported.
Results: . The EG showed statistically significant within-group improvements in all five outcomes, whereas the CG reached
Significance: only for the 500 m swimming test. Direct between-group comparisons of change scores did not reach statistical
significance for the 60 m sprint (p = .338), 500 m swimming (p = .069), 3000 m run (p = .341), shoulder mobility (p = .194), or standing long jump (p = .238). Between-group standardized effects favored the EG and ranged from g = 0.42 to 0.83, but all 95% confidence intervals included zero.
Conclusion: . The proposed model was associated with large within-group improvements in the EG and moderate-to-large between-group effect estimates; however, the small non-randomized sample did not provide sufficient evidence to establish statistically significant superiority over conventional training. Larger randomized or adequately controlled studies are required to confirm the comparative effect.