Methods of training

The topic's most repeated weakness. Asked to justify a named method (e.g. why continuous training suits a marathon runner), candidates describe overload itself ("work harder") instead of a method-specific reason -- steady, sustained pace matches a marathon's aerobic demand. End with "...because for THIS performer, [the demand it meets]".

A definition trap: candidates swap the %1RM/repetition combinations. High %1RM (80-90%) with LOW reps (1-6) develops maximum strength; LOW %1RM (60-70%) with HIGH reps (15-20) develops muscular endurance. Heavy weight, few reps = strength; lighter weight, many reps = endurance. The wrong combination trains the wrong aim entirely.

Candidates know a method's advantages well, but disadvantages are weaker -- the classic unjustified answer is that it is "boring", with no explanation. That earns no credit. Name a specific, developed limitation instead: hard to control intensity, poor specificity to the sport, injury risk from explosive moves, or cost/equipment.

Two aerobic methods, easily confused. Continuous training holds a steady, unchanging pace with no rest. Fartlek ("speed play") is continuous training with varied pace and terrain -- the surges also stress the anaerobic system and mimic the changing pace of games. If your answer never mentions changing pace, you have described continuous, not fartlek.

Even a correct method effect is capped if left generic. "Weight training builds strength" in the abstract is not enough -- it must be applied to the named performer: a rugby player's scrummaging power, or a sprinter's explosive start. AO2 marks come from naming THAT activity's demand and how the method meets it.

The numeric strand has two recurring slips. First, max HR = 220 - age -- subtract the age; adding it, or using the age itself, is wrong. Second, a zone boundary is a percentage of the calculated max HR, not of the age or of 220 (60% of a 204 bpm max HR is 0.60 x 204). Always give the answer in bpm -- a missing unit is an avoidable mark loss.

Students assume more intensity always means faster aerobic gains, so above 80% of max HR must be best. It is not. Continuous training develops aerobic endurance, which needs the 60-80% max HR zone. Above 80% shifts to predominantly anaerobic -- a different, unsustainable effect; below 60% is too light to overload. Intensity must match the aim.