A Novel Field Test to Determine Critical Speed

Galbraith, Andy; Hopker, James G.; Jobson, Simon A.; Passfield, Louis

doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000101

Cited by 5 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, research directly comparing different modalities 5,6,21 or shortened recovery periods 4,6,7,22 do not comprise ܸ ሶ O 2 kinetics analysis. The faster MRT observed during the TTs is in accordance with studies using all-out or fast-start strategies compared with even-start or slow-start strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Trials Versus Time-to-Exhaustion Tests: Effects on Critical Power, W′, and Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics

Karsten¹,

Baker²,

Naclerio³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

by three TTE and three TT efforts interspersed by a 60-min recovery between efforts. 29Oxygen uptake was measured during all trials. The mean response time (MRT) was 30 calculated as a description of the overall ܸ ሶ O 2 kinetic response from the onset to 2 min of 31 exercise. Results: TTE determined CP was 279 ± 52W and TT determined CP was 276 32 ± 50W (P = 0.237). Values of W′ were 14.3 ± 3.4 kJ (TTE W′) and 16.5± 4.2 kJ (TT W′) 33 (P = 0.028). Whilst a high level of agreement (-12 to 17 W) and a low prediction error of 34 2.7% was established for CP, for W′ limits of agreements were markedly lower (-8 to 3.7 35 kJ) with a prediction error of 18.8%. The mean standard error for TTE CP values was 36 significantly higher than that for TT CP values (2.4 ± 1.9% vs. 1.2 ± 0.7% W). The 37 standard error for TTE W′ and TT W′ were 11.2 ± 8.1% and 5.6 ± 3.6%, respectively. 38The ܸ ሶ O 2 response was significantly faster during TT (~22 s) than TTE (~28 s).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Trials Versus Time-to-Exhaustion Tests: Effects on Critical Power, W′, and Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics

Karsten¹,

Baker²,

Naclerio³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CS was determined in accordance with the method proposed by Figueiredo et al (14), adapted from the procedure of Galbraith et al (16). The CS was estimated through a linear regression between the distance run (d) and T lim using the d 5 (CS 3 T lim ) 1 D9 model, where d is the distance run (in meters), CS the critical speed (in meters per second), T lim the time to exhaustion (in seconds), and D9 is maximum distance covered (in meters) above the CS (17,24). In addition, this test also estimated the D' (maximum distance covered above CS).…”

Section: Determination Of Critical Speed (Cs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peak Running Velocity vs. Critical Speed: Which One Is Better to Prescribe Endurance Training to Recreational Runners?

Figueiredo,

Manoel

et al. 2023

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Figueiredo, DH, Figueiredo, DH, Manoel, FA, and Machado, FA. Peak running velocity vs. critical speed: which one is better to prescribe endurance training to recreational runners? J Strength Cond Res 37(9): 1783–1788, 2023—This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 5 weeks of training prescribed by peak running velocity obtained on the track (Vpeak_TR) and their respective time limit (Tlim), as well as by critical speed (CS), on physiological and endurance performance parameters in recreational runners. Twenty-two male runners were distributed into a Vpeak_TR group (GVP) and CS group (GCS) with a predefined program, alternating moderate-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training. Maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), and its respective velocity (vV̇O2max), Vpeak_TR, Tlim at 100% Vpeak_TR, 5-km running performance, CS, and D’ (maximum distance covered above CS) were assessed at pretraining and posttraining period. There was a significant increase from pretraining to posttraining in Vpeak_TR (GVP = 4.5 ± 3.1% vs. GCS = 7.5 ± 4.2%), vV̇O2max (GVP = 3.9 ± 3.8% vs. GCS = 8.6 ± 6.7%), and mean velocity 5-km (GVP = 5.6 ± 3.3% vs. GCS = 7.3 ± 3.5%) and decrease in 5-km time (GVP = −5.1 ± 3.0% vs. GCS = −6.8 ± 3.0%). CS and V̇O2max significantly improved in GCS (9.3 ± 8.4% and 6.0 ± 6.8%, respectively), with no difference for GVP (2.8 ± 5.6% and 1.3 ± 8.4%, respectively). No differences were observed between groups for all variables. These findings give further supports to the notion that both variables obtained on the track are valid tools to prescribed training in recreational runners.

show abstract

“…Each participant performed three time trials (TTs) on the track field (1: 2,600 m; 2: 1,800 m; and 3: 1,000 m). These TTs were selected according to Galbraith et al (2011) and Hughson et al (1984) to result in completion times between 3 and 12 min before volitional exhaustion. Consistent with Triska et al (2017) and Galbraith et al (2011), the sequence of TTs was conducted in the order of the longest to the shortest effort, on the same day, with a 30-min rest period to ensure a fully reconstituted D (maximum distance covered above the CS).…”

Section: Determination Of Critical Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These TTs were selected according to Galbraith et al (2011) and Hughson et al (1984) to result in completion times between 3 and 12 min before volitional exhaustion. Consistent with Triska et al (2017) and Galbraith et al (2011), the sequence of TTs was conducted in the order of the longest to the shortest effort, on the same day, with a 30-min rest period to ensure a fully reconstituted D (maximum distance covered above the CS). The participants completed a 5-min self-paced low-intensity warm-up exercise and were encouraged to cover the set TTs as quickly as possible; time was measured using a stopwatch (Galbraith et al, 2014).…”

Section: Determination Of Critical Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participants completed a 5-min self-paced low-intensity warm-up exercise and were encouraged to cover the set TTs as quickly as possible; time was measured using a stopwatch (Galbraith et al, 2014). The CS was estimated through a linear regression between the distance run (d) and t lim using the d = (CS × t lim ) + D model, where d is the distance run (in meters), CS the critical speed (in meters per second), t lim the time to exhaustion (in seconds), and D is the maximum distance covered (in meters) above the CS (Hughson et al, 1984;Galbraith et al, 2011). CS was estimated through the combinations of three (CS 1 , 2 , 3 ) and two TTs (CS 1 , 2 , CS 1 , 3 , and CS 2 , 3 ).…”

Section: Determination Of Critical Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peak Running Velocity or Critical Speed Under Field Conditions: Which Best Predicts 5-km Running Performance in Recreational Runners?

Figueiredo

Manoel

et al. 2021

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to examine which variable, between the peak running velocity determined on the track field (Vpeak_TF) and critical speed (CS), is the best predictor of the 5-km running performance in recreational runners. Twenty-five males performed three tests to determine the Vpeak_TF, CS, and 5-km running performance on the track field, with a minimal interval of 48 h between each test. The Vpeak_TF protocol started with a velocity of 8 km⋅h–1, followed by an increase of 1 km⋅h–1 every 3 min until volitional exhaustion, which was controlled by sound signals, with cones at every 25 m indicating when the participants were required to pass the cone’s position to maintain the required velocity. The participants performed three time trials (TTs) (1: 2,600 m; 2: 1,800 m; and 3: 1,000 m) on the same day, with a 30-min rest period to determine the CS through the combinations of three (CS1,2,3) and two TTs (CS1,2, CS1,3, and CS2,3). The 5-km running performance time was recorded to determine the test duration, and the mean velocity (MV) was calculated. There was a significant difference observed between the Vpeak_TF and the MV 5-km running performance. However, no differences were found between the CS values and the MV 5-km running performance. A correlation was observed between the Vpeak_TF (R = −0.90), CS1,2,3 (R = −0.95), CS1,3 (R = −0.95), and the 5-km running performance time. Linear regression indicated that the Vpeak_TF (R2 = 0.82), CS1,2,3 (R2 = 0.90), and CS1,3 (R2 = 0.90) significantly predicted the 5-km running performance time. The CS results showed a higher predictive power for the 5-km running performance, slightly better than the Vpeak_TF. Also, CS1,2,3 and the CS1,3 presented the highest predictive power for the 5-km running performance of recreational runners.

show abstract

A Novel Field Test to Determine Critical Speed

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Time Trials Versus Time-to-Exhaustion Tests: Effects on Critical Power, W′, and Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics

Time Trials Versus Time-to-Exhaustion Tests: Effects on Critical Power, W′, and Oxygen-Uptake Kinetics

Peak Running Velocity vs. Critical Speed: Which One Is Better to Prescribe Endurance Training to Recreational Runners?

Peak Running Velocity or Critical Speed Under Field Conditions: Which Best Predicts 5-km Running Performance in Recreational Runners?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About