Purpose: To validate a new perceptually regulated, self-paced maximal oxygen consumption field test (the Running Advisor Billat Training [RABIT] test) that can be used by recreational runners to define personalized training zones. Design: In a cross-sectional study, male and female recreational runners (N = 12; mean [SD] age = 43 [8] y) completed 3 maximal exercise tests (2 RABIT tests and a University of Montreal Track Test), with a 48-hour interval between tests. Methods: The University of Montreal Track Test was a continuous, incremental track test with a 0.5-km·h−1 increment every minute until exhaustion. The RABIT tests were conducted at intensities of 11, 14, and 17 on the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for 10, 5, and 3 minutes, respectively, with a 1-minute rest between efforts. Results: The 2 RABIT tests and the University of Montreal Track Test gave similar mean (SD) maximal oxygen consumption values (53.9 [6.4], 56.4 [9.1], and 55.4 [7.6] mL·kg−1·min−1, respectively, P = .722). The cardiorespiratory and speed responses were reliable as a function of the running intensity (RPE: 11, 14, and 17) and the relative time point for each RPE stage. Indeed, the oxygen consumption, heart rate, ventilation, and speed values did not differ significantly when the running time was expressed as a relative duration of 30%, 60%, or 90% (ie, at 3, 6, and 9 min of a 10-min effort at RPE 11; P = .997). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that the RABIT test is a valid method for defining submaximal and maximal training zones in recreational runners.

Until recently, it was thought that maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was elicited only in middle-distance events and not the sprint or marathon distances. We tested the hypothesis that VO2max can be elicited in both the sprint and marathon distances and that the fraction of time spent at VO2max is not significantly different between distances. Methods: Seventy-eight well-trained males (mean [SD] age: 32 [13]; weight: 73 [9] kg; height: 1.80 [0.8] m) performed the University of Montreal Track Test using a portable respiratory gas sampling system to measure a baseline VO2max. Each participant ran one or two different distances (100 m, 200 m, 800 m, 1500 m, 3000 m, 10 km or marathon) in which they are specialists. Results: VO2max was elicited and sustained in all distances tested. The time limit (Tlim) at VO2max on a relative scale of the total time (Tlim at VO2max%Ttot) during the sprint, middle-distance, and 1500 m was not significantly different (p > 0.05). The relevant time spent at VO2max was only a factor for performance in the 3000 m group, where the Tlim at VO2max%Ttot was the highest (51.4 [18.3], r = 0.86, p = 0.003). Conclusions: By focusing on the solicitation of VO2max, we demonstrated that the maintenance of VO2max is possible in the sprint, middle, and marathon distances.

This paper aims to test the hypothesis whereby freely chosen running pace is less effective than pace controlled by a steady-state physiological variable. Methods Eight runners performed four maximum-effort 3000 m time trials on a running track. The first time trial (TT1) was freely paced. In the following 3000 m time trials, the pace was controlled so that the average speed (TT2), average V˙O2 (TT3) or average HR (TT4) recorded in TT1 was maintained throughout the time trial. Results: Physiologically controlled pace was associated with a faster time (mean ± standard deviation: 740 ± 34 s for TT3 and 748 ± 33 s for TT4, vs. 854 ± 53 s for TT1; p < 0.01), a lower oxygen cost of running (200 ± 5 and 220 ± 3 vs. 310 ± 5 mLO2·kg−1·km−1, respectively; p < 0.02), a lower cardiac cost (0.69 ± 0.08 and 0.69 ± 0.04 vs. 0.86 ± 0.09 beat·m−1, respectively; p < 0.01), and a more positively skewed speed distribution (skewness: 1.7 ± 0.9 and 1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Physiologically controlled pace (at the average V˙O2 or HR recorded in a freely paced run) was associated with a faster time, a more favorable speed distribution and lower levels of physiological strain, relative to freely chosen pace. This finding suggests that non-elite runners do not spontaneously choose the best pace strategy.