Assessment of critical velocity in track and treadmill: physiological profiles and relationship with 3000-meter performance

Avaliação da velocidade crítica de corrida em pista e esteira: perfis fisiológicos e relações com o desempenho em 3000 metros

Abstract

The present study aiming to verify the interference of different conditions (treadmill vs. track) on critical velocity (CV) values, as well as on the correlation to the 3000-meter performance (v3000m), and thus infer about the specificity of each values as training parameter for this distance. Seven runners (15.3±1.4 years) were submitted to a maximal progressive test (1.0 km×h^-1 increments per minute until exhaustion) to assess V̇O₂max and maximal aerobic velocity (vV̇O₂max). Subsequently, CV was estimated from three running performances at each test condition, with exercise intensities adjusted for different time limits (t_Lim) at 900, 2100 and 3300 meters in track or at 90, 95 and 115% of vV̇O₂max in treadmill. From linear adjustments, using stepwise method, CV was assessed on treadmill (CV_TREADMILL) and track (CV_TRACK), and both compared by the Mann-Whitney test. The sample-adjusted dispersion coefficient (R²_adj) analyzed the variance of v3000m with CV_TRACK, CV_TREADMILL and vV̇O₂max. In all analyses, significance was set at P≤0.05. In progressive test, V̇O₂max reached 54.2±5.2 mLO2×kg^-1×min^-1 and vV̇O₂max reached 16.8±1.9 km×h^-1. No differences were observed between CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK (14.0±1.8 vs. 12.3±3.2 km×h^-1, P=0.46). Correlations were observed for v3000m with CV_TREADMILL (R²_adj ~0.94), CV_TRACK (R²_adj ~0.99) and vV̇O₂max (R²_adj ~0.90), all showing P=0.001. It could be concluded that no influence was observe on the ability to achieve identical CV values from different assessment conditions. The correlation to the v3000 meters suggested better specificity of CV_TRACK than CV_TREADMILL for training prescription and performance control.

Key words
Athletic performance; Exercise test; Exercise tolerance; Oxygen uptake; Track and field

Resumo

O presente estudo averiguou se as diferenças nas circunstâncias (esteira vs. pista) de avaliação da velocidade crítica (VC) interferem no valor e na relação com a desempenho em 3000 metros (v3000m) e, assim, indicar a especificidade de cada valor como parâmetro de treinamento para esta distância. Sete corredores (15,3±1,4 anos) submeteram-se a um teste progressivo máximo (incrementos de 1,0 km×h^-1×min^-1, até a exaustão) para avaliação do V̇O₂max e velocidade aeróbia máxima (vV̇O₂max). A seguir, a VC foi estimada a partir do desempenho de corrida em três diferentes intensidades do exercício, em cada ambiente de avaliação, registrando-se o tempo-limite (t_Lim) nas distâncias de 900, 2100 e 3300 metros na pista, e à 90, 95 e 115% vV̇O₂max em esteira. Ajustes lineares, pelo método “stepwise”, forneceram os parâmetros VC em esteira (VC_ESTEIRA) e pista (VC_PISTA), que foram comparados pelo teste de Mann-Whitney. O coeficiente de dispersão ajustado à amostra (R²_aj) averiguou a variância de v3000m com VC_PISTA, VC_ESTEIRA e vV̇O₂max. Em todas as análises adotou-se .≤0,05. No teste progressivo, o V̇O₂max atingiu 54,2±5,2 mLO2∙kg^-1∙min^-1 e a vV̇O₂max foi 16,8±1,9 km×h^-1. Não se observaram diferenças entre VC_ESTEIRA e VC_PISTA (14,0±1,8 vs. 12,3±3,2 km∙h^-1, P=0,46). Houveram correlações entre v3000m com VC_ESTEIRA (R²_aj ~0,94), VC_PISTA (R²_aj~0,99) e vV̇O₂max (R²_aj ~0,90), todas com P=0,001. Conclui-se que o contexto de avaliação não interfere na consistência do valor de VC. Porém, quanto à relação com v3000 metros, a VC_PISTA apresenta melhor especificidade, tornando-a mais autêntica que VC_ESTEIRA para a prescrição do treino e monitoramento do desempenho.

Palavras-chave
Atletismo; Consumo de oxigênio; Desempenho atlético; Teste de esforço; Tolerância ao exercício

INTRODUCTION

During efforts at distances with time limit (t_Lim) between 10 and 15 minutes, such as 3000 meters, the performance-determining physiological scenario is characterized by higher metabolic rate, which can be sustained without the early disturbance of muscular and blood homeostasis in relation to the high blood lactate levels ([La^-]) and the continuous increase in the V̇O₂ response^1,2,3. This metabolic profile typifies the border between the heavy and severe exercise domain, which has been parameterized in running by critical velocity (CV)³; above which the exercise is (in) tolerable for a period of time dependent on the demand intensification on non-O₂-dependent metabolic pathways (e.g., on D’)^1,3.

However, CV and D’ evaluation involves a mathematical description by linear or hyperbolic adjustments between exercise intensity and time limit^3,4; and dependent on variability associated with the protocol (e.g., at least 3 efforts, with time limit of 2-15 minutes, and 5 viable adjustment equations)^2,4. Another relevant aspect is the specificity of the test condition, which, despite representing the everyday life of athletes (e.g., track in which training is developed), implies the adequacy of the time limit model standardized treadmill, mainly regarding the adjustment and control of exercise intensity. Thus, if on the one hand, CV evaluation in controlled environments (laboratory) allows questioning about the transfer of this training parameter to (“in loco”) daily practice conditions^5-8; on the other hand, the possibility of interferences in the reproduction of the CV protocol in track, such as speed oscillation and running economy⁹, compromise t_Lim and, thus, the CV evaluation authenticity.

In spite of these particularities, metabolic similarities has been observed between track and treadmill running for the running intensity between 10.5 and 18.0 km∙h^-1, as described by Jones and Doust⁶. This similarities allowed the reproduction of the speed-time model (v-1/t_Lim, which is analogous to the time limit model) in track, whose estimated CV value (292.9 ± 20.8 m∙min^-1) (299.5 ± 19.8 m∙min^-1) allowed authors such as Kranemburg and Smith⁸ to conclude that, among trained runners, track and treadmill performance conditions provide reciprocal exhaustion times and, therefore, the CV diagnosis in track maintains the authenticity of the original treadmill estimation. Additionally, Simões et al.¹⁰ analyzed the consistency of CV determination in track and observing the absence of difference when estimating it by different linear models (d-t_Lim and v-1/t_Lim) and different t_Lim combinations in the predictive efforts. Their results also showed that the CV values in track correlated with velocity corresponding to the minimum lactate threshold (vlm) (r = 0.96) and to velocity at 3000 meters (v3000m) (r = 0.995), although v3000m characterized running intensity significantly higher than both, also because vlm and CV stood at ~92% and ~96% respectively of v3000m. However, CV evaluated on treadmill has also shown the propensity to index running performance, given the correlations evidenced both with short-distance performance capacity indexes, as the maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O₂max, r = 0.51 – 0.70) and its occurrence rate (vV̇O₂max, r = 0.64 – 0.86), as well as with long-term performance indexes, such as velocity corresponding to the lactate threshold by fixed concentration of 4.0 mmol∙L^-1 (OBLA, r = 0.66 – 0.73)^11,12,13. These correlations reveal an ambiguity in the representation and application of CV, but also reveal that CV evaluation is not affected by the difference running conditions (treadmill vs. track) and has validity when representing physiological indexes of medium- and long-duration exercises, as those described above.

However, the theoretical information is still inconclusive about the influence of the running condition (treadmill vs. track) on the potential of correlation between CV and medium-distance performance (as v3000m) and the applicability of each value obtained as training parameter. This is because studies carried out on treadmill and track have sometimes been concerned with the physiological significance of CV evaluations, presenting their correlations with aerobic fitness parameters⁸, sometimes describe the relationships between CV and running performance at medium¹⁰ or long distances¹¹, using CV evaluations obtained in single contexts, such as track¹⁰ and treadmill¹¹. Therefore, the question whether CV evaluation context is influenced by the specificity of the environment (track) or the evaluation accuracy (treadmill), regarding the propensity of this parameter in indexing the running performance, it stills remains without a definitive answer. In addressing this issue, there is a need to gather methodological (compatibility between assessment procedures), conceptual (to contextualize its physiological meaning by similarity with other demand parameters and metabolic nature in exercise) and application information (relationships with running performance in a specific domain of exercise intensity).

Thus, the aim was to analyze the adequacy of the CV evaluation protocol in track against the gold standard of treadmill determination, considering the possibility of clarifying if there are differences in the exhaustion time and blood lactate response, when comparing the CV predictive running performances, as well as, if differences, once verified, alter the mathematical adjustment of the CV evaluation model to the point of interfering in the specificity of its theoretical application: to index performance of middle and long distances. The thematic focus on the 3000-meter performance is related, in the present study, to the population analyzed, since this distance is the maximum allowed in national competitions for the age group investigated.

METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

Seven athletes (15.3 ± 1.4 years, 1.7 ± 0.1 m, and 59.2 ± 13.2 kg), who returned the consent form aware of the procedures signed by parents/guardians, participated in the present study. This is an occasionally sample, given the lack of running training circumstances involving adolescents that met the training specificity (middle distance), training time (minimum one year with daily routine), sex and age group. All participants performed (1) progressive test (ramp type) for V̇O₂max and vV̇O₂max¹⁴ evaluation; (2) performance tests on track delimited by medium distances for CV track evaluation (CV_TRACK)¹²; and (3) constant tests up to the limit of tolerance at running intensity around vV̇O₂max for CV treadmill evaluation (CV_TREADMILL)⁴. A minimum interval of 24h and a maximum of 48h were established between progressive test and CV determination tests, as well as between each predictive effort on track and treadmill. Track tests were carried out on a 300-meter open track (pressed charcoal floor), always at the same time of day and prior to the training session. Subjects were instructed to avoid exhaustive workouts, alcoholic and caffeinated beverages the day before the evaluation, as well as attending fed and hydrated. The present study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee (FC -UNESP / Bauru) and registered under CAAE protocol 02589012.3.0000.5398.

Maximum Progressive Test

During the progressive test, the slope was maintained at 1.0%⁶ and the speed progressed 1.0 km∙h^-1∙min^-1 from 7.0 km∙h^-until exhaustion on treadmill model HP/Cosmos Pulsar (Nussdorf-Traunstein, Germany). V̇O₂ was measured breath-to-breath throughout the test by an automated unit (QuarkPFTergo, Cosmed, Rome, Italy). System calibration was performed prior to each test as instructed by the manufacturer. V̇O₂ values were smoothed by three-second filter and averaged at each six-second interval. [La^-] was analyzed at rest and in the first minute after the end of the test. Lactate concentration analysis was performed using the enzymatic method (YSL 2500STAT, Yellow Spring, Colorado) using arterial blood samplings.

V̇O₂max was considered the highest 30s average value. The vV̇O₂max was considered the slowest velocity that projected V̇O₂ to the maximum. The gas exchange threshold (GET) was determined according to recommendations of Whipp¹⁴, by the V̇_E∙V̇CO₂^-1, V̇_E∙V̇O₂^-1, PETCO₂ and PETO₂ responses, observing the increase in V̇_E∙V̇O₂^-1 and PETO₂ curves without alteration in V̇_E∙V̇CO₂^-1 and PETCO₂ response. GET and V̇O₂max evaluations were performed by two or three experienced researchers, independently. In determining the velocity corresponding to GET (vGET) and V̇O₂max (vV̇O₂max), mean response time (MRT) of 40 seconds was considered¹⁵. The calculation of v50%Δ was performed based on the difference between vGET and vV̇O₂max^9,15. This parameter is also considered a reference of the threshold exercise intensity between the heavy/severe domains^1,15.

Critical velocity (CV) assessment on track and treadmill

Predictive CV efforts in track (900, 2100, 3300 meters) and treadmill (90%, 95% and 115% vV̇O₂max) were performed in a random manner, with minimum intervals of 24h, whose track distances and treadmill running intensity were adopted according to recommendations of Kranenburg; Smith⁸ and Bull et al.⁴, respectively. The time limit (t_Lim) was recorded in seconds and the velocity and t_Lim values were adjusted by v-t_Lim^-1 and dt_Lim models, according to Equations 1 and 2, using standard error of estimate (SEE) as a criterion for choosing the CV value for each participant^4,13.

$$v=D\text{'}\times \frac{1}{\left(t\right)}+VC$$ [1]

$$d=D\text{'}\times t+VC$$ [2]

where: “v” = running speed; “D" = amount of work with anaerobic resources; “t” = is the t_Lim of predictive efforts and “CV” = is the critical velocity in track (CV_TRACK) or treadmill (CV_TREADMILL). [La^-] was also analyzed at rest and at the first minute after the end of each track and treadmill running performance.

3000-meter test

The 3000-meter performance was carried out on a 300-meter track where athletes routinely trained. The time to complete the 3000 meters was determined by the sum of the 300-meter partials and used to calculate the average speed (v3000m).

Exercise intensity

Relative oxidative demand (%V̇O₂max) and relative effort intensity (%vV̇O₂max) were determined for CV_TRACK, CV_TREADMILL, v300m and v50%Δ. The proportional relationship between velocities of these parameters and the maximum aerobic velocity (% vV̇O₂max) were determined by the percentage variation. Oxidative demand (V̇O₂) at each velocity was determined by linear trend analysis of the individual velocity and V̇O₂ responses during the incremental test and by the percentage variation of values obtained with V̇O₂max¹⁶.

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as mean ± SD. Differences between CV and D’ on treadmill and track were verified by the Mann-Whitney Test (U) and time-limit differences (t_Lim) between track and treadmill predictive efforts were analyzed by the Wilcoxon Test. Analysis of variance and concordance between track and treadmill CV were performed by the dispersion coefficient (R²), standard error of estimation (SEE) and by Bland-Altman¹⁷. The sample power regarding the linear correlation coefficient was determined by Equation 3.

$$Z_{1-\beta }=\sqrt{\mathbf{n}\mathbf{}\mathbf{-}\mathbf{}\mathbf{3}}\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{2}}Ln\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{r}}{\mathbf{1}\mathbf{}\mathbf{-}\mathbf{}\mathbf{r}}\right)-Z_{1-\raisebox{1ex}{$\mathbf{\alpha }$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\mathbf{2}$}\right.}$$ [3]

where Z_1-β provides the coefficient for the determination of the sample power by the normal two-tailed distribution of its value and “r” is the Pearson linear coefficient among variables¹⁸. The correlations of v3000m with CV (treadmill and track), vV̇O₂max and V̇O₂max were determined by the adjusted dispersion coefficient (R²adj) for participant sampling (N) and dependent variables (k). The “least squares” method was used in all simple linear adjustment procedures. In all analyses, P≤0.05 was used. Statistical procedures were performed in SPSS 24^Ò software (IBM, Chigado, IL, USA).

RESULTS

The maximum values obtained in the progressive test were: 54.2 ± 5.2 mLO₂∙kg¹∙min^-1 and 16.8 ± 1.9 km∙h^-1, corresponding to V̇O₂max and vV̇O₂max, respectively. CV evaluation presented SEE <5%, regardless of evaluation environment (treadmill vs. track) and adjustment model (Figure 1). The mean SEE associated with CV_TREADMILL assessment was 0.30 ± 0.14 m^-1 (2.1 ± 1.0%), while CV_TRACK reached 0.58 ± 0.33 m^-1 (4.9 ± 2.9%). For the D’ parameter, SEE on treadmill was 14.8 ± 5.9 m (11.9 ± 5.1%) and in track, value was equivalent to 66.6 ± 58.3 m (30.4 ± 23.6%). No differences were observed when comparing CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK: 14.0 ± 1.8 vs. 12.3 ± 3.2 km∙h^-1 (P = 0.46). No differences were observed when comparing the anaerobic reserve parameter (D’) in treadmill and track: 137.1 ± 22.5 m vs. 267.9 ±115.4 m (P = 0.07). When analyzing the distance-limit model (dLim) on the track and comparing it to the time-limit model (t_Lim) applied on treadmill, Table 1 highlights differences only in terms of the t_Lim of the highest intensity predictor (115% vV̇O₂max .s. 900 m), but in the other predictors, t_Lim did not present differences between protocol application environments.

Figure 1
CV determination by the d-t_Lim and v-1/t_Lim models, presenting SEE of the adjustment on treadmill (Panels A and B) and track (Panels C and D) as a criterion for selecting values for a runner (subject 7: V̇O₂max = 60.25 mL∙kg^-1∙min^-1).

Table 1
Mean and standard deviations in the MIQ-C score for each group in each imagery modality.

	tLim		FinalHR		Final[La]
	(bpm)		(bpm)		(mmol∙L-1)
Treadmill
(%vV̇ O2max)
90%	817.9 ± 170.3		192.3 ± 7.8		9.5 ± 2.5
95%	469.0 ± 45.0		201.6 ± 8.7		12.8 ± 4.6
115%	119.7 ± 36.8*		204.3 ± 10.6		10.9 ± 3.7
Track
(meters)
3300	943.6 ± 218.1		206.6 ± 10.4		13.4 ± 5.6
2100	555.0 ± 123.5		206.9 ± 13.8		11.7 ± 4.1
900	189.0 ± 19.7*		197.7 ± 10.9		12.7 ± 1.5

• Note.
• ^*
  Note.Significant difference at P ≤ 0.05 between predictions in 900-m track and treadmill at 115% vV̇0₂max.

The exercise intensity contextualized by the oxidative demand in %V̇O₂max and effort in %vV̇O₂max differs between CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02) and between CV_TRACK and v50%Δ (13.7 ± 1.6 km∙h^-1) (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01) when comparing them respectively by both parameters (Figure 2). It was also verified by Figure 2 that v3000m does not characterize exercise different from CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK and v50%Δ, either when comparing them respectively by %V̇O₂max (P = 0.23, P = 0.29, P = 0.15), or by %vV̇O₂max (P = 0.18, P = 0.27, P = 0.47).

Figure 2
Comparison between oxidative demands (%V̇O₂max) and running intensity (%vV̇O₂max) corresponding to CV (track and treadmill), to v3000m (performance velocity at middle distances) and v50%Δ (corresponding to 14.2 ± 1.6 km×h^-1). * Significant difference at P ≤ 0.05.

There was concordance between CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK values (Figure 3A and 3B), with 87% of variance in the treadmill evaluation associated to values determined in track and constant error of ~1.6 km∙h^-1. The sampling power (n = 7) for the association between CV_TREADMILL and CV_TRACK values was calculated in 94.3%, for safety level of 80% (Z₁-α/₂ =1.282) and Pearson’s coefficient r = 0.943.

Figure 3
Dispersion analysis (Panel A) and Bland-Altman agreement (Panel B) between CV values (km∙h^-1) determined in track and treadmill.

High association between v3000m with CV_TREADMILL, CV_TRACK and vV̇O₂max was observed, but the association between v3000m and V̇O₂max was not significant (Figure 4). The sample power (n = 7) for statistically significant associations was calculated as 99.9% (Z_1-b=4.03), 99.3% (Z_1-b=2.48) and 96.7% (Z_1-b=1.84), respectively to ensure confidentiality of relationships between v3000m vs. CV_TRACK, v3000m vs. CV_TREADMILL and v3000m vs. vV̇O₂max. In these calculations, safety level of 80% (Z1-α/2 = 1.282) was adopted, with Pearson coefficients r = 0.99, r = 0.98 and r = 0.96, respectively.

Figure 4
Dispersion analysis between v3000m and CV_TRACK values (Panel A), CV_TREADMILL (Panel B), vV̇O₂max (Panel C) and V̇O₂max (Panel D)

DISCUSSION

When estimating CV in different environments, no differences were found between absolute velocity values on track and treadmill, but the exercise conditions differed when characterized by aerobic demand (%V̇O₂max) or running intensity (%vV̇O₂max). Thus, it was not possible to accept the hypothesis that the evaluation environment would provide indiscriminately reciprocal CV values. In addition, CV values are mutually consistent, corroborating the results observed by Kranemburg and Smith⁸, who did not find differences between CV values among young runners. The results also corroborated those obtained by Galbraith et al.¹⁹, whose laboratory CV value (4.05 ± 0.22 m∙s^-1) did not differ from that obtained in track (4.07 ± 0.28 m∙s^-1) with fixed dLim predictions (3600, 2400 and 1200 meters). Therefore, it was concluded that the environment does not interfere with the CV value or in the protocol, since predictions in treadmill based on %V̇O₂max are compatible with predictions in track based on the t_Lim by fixed distances.

In cycling, a sporting modality in which contextual interferences were verified during the application of the time-limit model, there are indications that the laboratory performance does not ecologically reproduce some elements present in track, such as familiarity with the competition environment and equipment, providing critical power evaluations (CP, analogous to CV), with low transfer to the training and competition context. In fact, when comparing the oxidative demand (V̇O₂) in the cycle ergometer (laboratory) and track cycling in similar power (78% V̇O₂max), efficiency and economy were higher on track (~ 12% and 11%, respectively), regardless of terrain slope or pedal cadence²⁰. This difference supported the conclusion that tolerance is lower during exercise in the severe field in cycle ergometer (laboratory), influencing changes in the result of the mathematical model and, therefore, in the CP values (adjustment slope) and W ’(adjustment intercept). However, Karsten et al.²¹ and Triska et al.²² could not confirm the existence of differences between CP values assessed in different contexts. For Karsten et al.²¹, even differences observed for t_Lim, final [La-] and pedal power during velodrome (3, 7 and 12 min) and laboratory (80, 100 and 105% iV̇O₂max) were determinant to change the CP value, even analyzing it by different linear adjustments (Wt_Lim and W-1/t_Lim) in velodrome (234.0±24.4 vs. 235.0±24.1 W) and laboratory (234.0 ± 25.5 vs. 236.0 ± 29.1 W). In the study by Triska et al.²², the evaluation of CP in laboratory and field conditions provided similar values (280W vs. 281W, respectively); however, the authors warned against reciprocal use due to the high variability of ~7% (95% CI: -55 to 50W) in the CP evaluation between contexts. In the present study, it was observed that many of the information described for cycling apply to track and treadmill running conditions.

Regarding the reproduction of the CV evaluation protocol on track, young runners presented exhaustion times of approximately 3, 9 and 15 minutes for the 900, 2100 and 3300 meter distances, similar to exhaustion times of 3, 7 and 12 minutes observed by Triska et al.¹³, as well as by Galbraith et al.¹⁹ for distances of 1200, 2400 and 3600 meters. Although a clear difference in running velocity (by associating distance and time among studies), which may have occurred due to differences in age, experience and training status in the population analyzed by Galbraith et al.¹⁹, the quality of reproduction of the CV protocol on track is verified, regardless of age, and also, as already noted by Nimmerichter et al.²³, regardless of training status.

Regarding the comparison between CV evaluation protocols performed in track and treadmill, highly correlated exhaustion time values have been reported (r = 0.89 to 0.94, P <0.01)¹⁹. However, as in the cycling evaluation, the present study found the occurrence of a trend of reduction in treadmill exhaustion time when compared to track, which could not be statistically demonstrated by comparing duration or by heart rate and blood lactate responses at each protocol performance. This trend, confirmed only for higher intensity performances between track and treadmill protocols, can be explained by the difficulty in elaborating paired protocols regarding the distance and exhaustion time between track and treadmill contexts¹⁹. Another possible explanation would be the running cost (C) which, since it is inversely related to running speed, provides higher demand on the V̇O₂ fraction used with the increase in velocity achieved²⁴, ²⁵. However, since “C” is relatively constant (= 3.8 to 3.9 J×m^-1×kg^-1) for distances between 800 and 5000 meters, the aerobic contribution would also be constant (27.1 W×kg^-1 or ~2.87 mLO₂×kg^-1×min^-1)²⁵, which could explain differences between track and treadmill protocols in case of time and duration discrepancies, such as higher speed performance. In addition, for being aerobic demand able to project V̇O₂ to maximum and provide exhaustion as the anaerobic reserve is exhausted, which is the fundamental principle of the CV evaluation protocol^1,9, it could be assumed that the mechanical adjustments, which contextualize running on an accelerated carpet as a task distinct from that of accelerating the body itself on the track²⁶, interfere with the efficiency of converting metabolic energy into kinetic energy and thus change “C”²⁵, precipitating treadmill exhaustion by increasing anaerobic resources depletion rate.

However, it is emphasized that this difference in treadmill exhaustion time is not able to change the mathematical adjustment between distance vs. time or velocity vs. distance to the point where the CV value differs from that evaluated on the track, but justifies the prediction of relative V̇O₂ demand greater for CV performance on treadmill. Therefore, it is possible to question the environmental ecology of the CV evaluation on treadmill, but in doing so, its application as a reference of running intensity transferable to the control of high-intensity aerobic training on track is also questioned. On the other hand, it could be assumed that the CV evaluation on track underestimates the maximum intensity reference, above which tolerance during exercise is compromised by metabolic acidosis, since the reference standard is designed for treadmill^1,4,9. In the present study, the relationship with 3000-meter performance was elevated for CV in both protocols (treadmill and track), as well as with vV̇O₂max. However, CV_TRACK was strongly associated (~99%) to the v3000m variation, and also CV_TREADMILL and vV̇O₂max, but with lower explanatory potentials (~94% and ~89%, respectively). This result can be explained by the environmental specificity, which tends to provide aerobic evaluation parameters with greater associative potential with time, or performance velocity, as the highest vV̇O₂max associations in track (78% and 66%, respectively), compared to vV̇O₂max associations in treadmill (62% and 35%, respectively) with performance at 1500 m (t_Lim: 4.8 ± 0.2 min) and 5000 m (t_Lim: 18.2 ± 0.8 min)²⁷. However, for Busso and Chatagnon²⁸ an aerobic capacity indicator becomes relevant to estimate the performance in medium distances as the performance time is close to 10 minutes.

Thus, the association between CV and 3000-meter performance seems to be dependent on both the specificity of the assessment context and the running time for this distance. In the study by Grant et al.²⁹, adult runners with V̇O₂max ~73 mLO₂∙kg^-1∙min^-1 and 3000-meter performance of ~584 s presented velocities corresponding to lactate thresholds (above rest and set at 4 mmol×L^-1), more associated with v3000m in greater magnitude (r = 0.93 for both) than to vV̇O₂max (r = 0.86). Another study addressing 5000meter performance determinants found that time (~19 min and 36 s) and velocity (4.29 m×s^-1 or ~15.4 km×h^-1) were more strongly associated to CV (v-1×t_Lim^-1: r = -0.77 and 0.78, respectively), than to vV̇O₂max (r = -0.71 and 0.74, respectively) among adult runners with moderately high fitness level (V̇O₂max = 63.6 mLO₂∙kg^-1∙min^-1)³⁰. In the present study, involving young runners still in the formation process (V̇O₂max = 54.2 ± 5.2 mLO₂∙kg^-1∙min^-1 and with t_Lim in 3000 meters of ~14 min and 31s), it is evident the potential of an aerobic capacity parameter (in this case CV) to index the medium-duration performance.

The limitation of the present study refers to the reduced number of efforts to predict CV that generated high SEE for the D’ on track. Above all, the implications of the present study are restricted to the age group and training status of participating runners. However, future studies should verify the similarity between laboratory vs. field environments in runners of different age groups and training status.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that CV determined on track is a reliable parameter of exercise in the heavy domain (e.g., exercise reference with high oxidative activation rate, without requiring continuous loss of metabolic homeostasis), easy to apply and reduced cost, which can be used by coaches and athletes for evaluation, prescription and monitoring of training, as well as for the prediction of middle-distance performance in young runners, thus demonstrating the ecological validity of this evaluation.

Funding

• This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This study was funded by the authors.

Ethical approval

• Ethical approval was obtained from the local Human Research Ethics Committee –FC – UNESP/Bauru, and the protocol was written in accordance with standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Burnley M, Jones AM. Power-duration relationship: Physiology, fatigue, and the limits of human performance. Eur J Sport Sci 2018;18(1):1-12.
• ²
  Jones AM, Vanhatalo A. The ‘Critical Power’Concept: Applications to Sports Performance with a Focus on Intermittent High-Intensity Exercise. Sports Med 2017;47(1):65-78.
• ³
  Broxterman RM, Ade CJ, Craig JC, Wilcox SL, Schlup SJ, Barstow TJ. The relationship between critical speed and the respiratory compensation point: coincidence or equivalence. Eur J Sport Sci 2014;15(7):631-9.
• ⁴
  Bull AJ, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Rana SR. Physiological responses at five estimates of critical velocity. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008;102(6):711-20.
• ⁵
  Tyler CJ, Reeve T, Hodges GJ, Cheung SS. The Effects of Heat Adaptation on Physiology, Perception and Exercise Performance in the Heat: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 2016;46(11):1699-1724.
• ⁶
  Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci 1996;14(4):321-7.
• ⁷
  Wendt D, van Loon LJ, Lichtenbelt WD. Thermoregulation during exercise in the heat: strategies for maintaining health and performance. Sports Med 2007;37(8):669-82.
• ⁸
  Kranenburg KJ, Smith DJ. Comparison of critical speed determined from track running and treadmill tests in elite runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28(5):614-8.
• ⁹
  Vanhatalo A, Burnley M, Morton RH, Poole DC. Critical power: implications for determination of V̇O2max and exercise tolerance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42(10):1876-90.
• ¹⁰
  Simões HG, Denadai BS, Baldissera V, Campbell CS, Hill DW. Relationships and significance of lactate minimum, critical velocity, heart rate deflection and 3000 m tracktests for running. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2005;45(4):441-51.
• ¹¹
  Florence S, Weir JP. Relationship of critical velocity to marathon running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997;75(3):274–8.
• ¹²
  Lacour JR, Padilla-Magunacelaya S, Barthelemy JC, Dormois D. The energetics of middledistance running. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1990;60(1):38-43.
• ¹³
  Triska C, Karsten B, Beedie C, Koller-Zeisler B, Nimmerichter A, Tschan H. Different durations within the method of best practice affect the parameters of the speed–duration relationship. Eur J Sport Sci 2018;18(3):332-40.
• ¹⁴
  Whipp BJ. Physiological mechanisms dissociating pulmonary CO2 and O2 exchange dynamics during exercise in humans. Exp Physiol 2007;92(2):347-55.
• ¹⁵
  Burnley M, Davison G, Baker JR. Effects of priming exercise on V̇O2 kinetics and the power-duration relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43(11):2171-9.
• ¹⁶
  Souza KM, deLucas RD, Salvador PCN, Helal LCAS, Guglielmo LGA, Greco CC, et al. Agreement analysis between critical power and intensity corresponding to 50% ∆ in cycling exercise. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2016;18(2):197-206.
• ¹⁷
  Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int J Nurs Stud 2010;47(8):931-6.
• ¹⁸
  Díaz SP, Fernández SP. Determinación del tamaño muestral para calcular la significación del coeficiente de correlación lineal. Cad Aten Primaria 2002;9(4):209-11.
• ¹⁹
  Galbraith A, Hopker J, Lelliott S, Diddams L, Passfield L. A single-visit field test of critical speed. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2014;9(6):931-5.
• ²⁰
  Bertucci WM, Betik AC, Duc S, Grappe F. Gross efficiency and cycling economy are higher in the field as compared with on an Axiom stationary ergometer. J Appl Biomech 2012;28(6):636-64.
• ²¹
  Karsten B, Jobson SA, Hopker J, Jimenez A, Beedie C. High agreement between laboratory and field estimates of critical power in cycling. Int J Sports Med 2014;35(4):298-03.
• ²²
  Triska C, Tschan H, Tazreiter G, Nimmerichter A. Critical Power in Laboratory and Field Conditions Using Single-visit Maximal Effort Trials. Int J Sports Med 2015;36(13):1063-8.
• ²³
  Nimmerichter A, Steindl M, Williams CA. Reliability of the Single-Visit Field Test of Critical Speed in Trained and Untrained Adolescents. Sports 2015;3(4):358-68.
• ²⁴
  Pugh LG. Oxygen intake in track and treadmill running with observations on the effect of air resistance. J Physiol 1970;207(3):823-35.
• ²⁵
  DiPrampero PE, Capelli C, Pagliaro P, Antonutto G, Girardis M, Zamparo P, et al. Energetics of best performances in middle-distance running. J Appl Physiol 1993;74(5):2318-24.
• ²⁶
  Van Caekenberghe I, Segers V, Willems P, Gosseye T, Aerts P, DeClercq D. Mechanics of overground accelerated running vs. running on an accelerated treadmill. Gait Posture 2013;38(1):125-31.
• ²⁷
  Souza KM, deLucas RD, Grossi T, Costa VP, Guglielmo LGA, Denadai BS. Predição da performance de corredores de endurance por meio de testes de laboratório e pista. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2014;16(4):466-74.
• ²⁸
  Busso T, Chatagnon M. Modelling of aerobic and anaerobic energy production in middledistance running. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006;97(6):745-54.
• ²⁹
  Grant S, Craig I, Wilson J, Aitchison T. The relationship between 3 km running performance and selected physiological variables. J Sports Sci 1997;15(4):403-10.
• ³⁰
  Nimmerichter A, Novak N, Triska C, Prinz B, Breese BC. Validity of treadmill-derived critical speed on predicting 5000-meter track-running performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(03):706-14

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Sep-Oct 2018

History

• Received
  11 Nov 2017
• Accepted
  16 July 2018