The purpose of this study was to compare anaerobic running capacity (ARC, i.e., the distance that can be run using only stored energy sources in the muscle) determined from a 3-parameter systems model with other anaerobic indices and with running performance in the 800 m. Seventeen trained male subjects (.VO(2max) = 66.54 +/- 7.29 ml . min (-1) . kg (-1)) performed an incremental test to exhaustion for the determination of .VO(2max) and peak treadmill velocity (PTV), five randomly ordered constant velocity tests at 95, 100, 105, 110, and 120 % of PTV to compute ARC and oxygen deficit (O(2)def, at 110 % of PTV), and a 800-m time trial to determine running performance (mean velocity over the distance, V (800 m)) and peak blood lactate concentration ([La (-)] (b, peak)). ARC (467 +/- 123 m) was positively correlated with O(2)def (56.35 +/- 18.47 ml . kg (-1); r = 0.57; p < 0.05), but not with [La (-)] (b, peak) (15.08 +/- 1.48 mmol . l (-1); r = - 0.16; p > 0.05). The O(2) equivalent of ARC (i.e., the product of ARC by the energy cost of running; 103.74 +/- 28.25 ml . kg (-1)), which is considered as an indirect estimation of O(2)def, was significantly higher than O(2)def (p < 0.01, effect size = 1.99). It was concluded that ARC is partially determined by anaerobic pathway, but that it probably does not provide an accurate measure of anaerobic capacity, if, however, O(2)def can be considered as a criterion measure for it.

The aim of this study was to compare maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (hereafter O2 deficit) estimated from the methods of Whipp et al. (1986), Medbo et al. (1988), and Hill et al. (1998) to determine whether they agree sufficiently to be used interchangeably. Nineteen moderately to highly trained endurance runners first performed an incremental test to exhaustion for the determination of maximal oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O(2max)) and peak treadmill speed, followed by six randomly ordered constant-speed tests at 95, 100, 105, 110, 110, and 120% of peak treadmill speed. All tests were separated by at least 72 h and were performed within 4 weeks. The method of Whipp produced an O(2) deficit estimate that was lower than that derived from the method of Hill or Medbo (bias +/- 95% limits of agreement: -29.6 +/- 36.6 and -26.1 +/- 32.8 ml . kg(-1), respectively; P < 0.001). The O2 deficit did not differ between the methods of Hill and Medbo (bias +/- 95% limits of agreement: 3.5 +/- 41.6 ml . kg(-1); n.s.). However, poor correlations (0.21 < r < 0.33; n.s.) together with wide limits of agreement between O2 deficit estimates (70 - 80% of the mean response) clearly question using these methods interchangeably.