Key result
Endurance-trained athletes achieved a significantly higher Maximal Aerobic Speed (16.07 km/h) compared to sprint-trained athletes (12.77 km/h).
Why the study?
Does calculating maximal aerobic speed (MAS) at a percentage of vVO2max accurately predict running performance and differentiate between endurance and sprint-trained athletes?
Cross-Sectional (n=40)
No
Does calculating maximal aerobic speed (MAS) at a percentage of vVO2max accurately predict running performance and differentiate between endurance and sprint-trained athletes?
Calculating maximal aerobic speed at a percentage of vVO2max rather than at vVO2max provides a more accurate prediction of running performance and effectively differentiates between endurance and sprint-trained athletes.
Supports MAS at %vVO2max for differentiating athlete types; hypothesis-generating for performance prediction, needs prospective validation.
This study determined Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS) at a speed that utilizes maximal aerobic and minimal anaerobic contributions. This method of determining MAS was compared between endurance (ET) and sprint (ST) trained athletes. Nineteen and 21 healthy participants were selected for the determination and validation of MAS respectively. All athletes completed five exercise sessions in the laboratory. Participants validating MAS also ran an all-out 5000 m at the track. Oxygen uptake at MAS was at 96.09 ± 2.51% maximal oxygen consumption ( V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max ). MAS had a significantly higher correlation with velocity at lactate threshold (vLT), critical speed, 5000 m, time-to-exhaustion velocity at delta 50 in addition to 5% velocity at V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max (T lim υΔ50 + 5%v V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max ), and Vsub%95 (υΔ50 or υΔ50 + 5%v V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max ) compared with v V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max , and predicted 5000 m speed (R 2 = 0.90, p < 0.001) and vLT (R 2 = 0.96, p < 0.001). ET athletes achieved significantly higher MAS (16.07 ± 1.58 km·h −1 vs. 12.77 ± 0.81 km·h −1 , p ≤ 0.001) and maximal aerobic energy (E MAS ) (52.87 ± 5.35 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 vs. 46.42 ± 3.38 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 , p = 0.005) and significantly shorter duration at MAS (ET: 678.59 ± 165.44 s; ST: 840.28 ± 164.97 s, p = 0.039). ST athletes had significantly higher maximal speed (35.21 ± 1.90 km·h −1 , p < 0.001) at a significantly longer distance (41.05 ± 3.14 m, p = 0.003) in the 50 m sprint run test. Significant differences were also observed in 50 m sprint performance ( p < 0.001), and peak post-exercise blood lactate ( p = 0.005). This study demonstrates that MAS is more accurate at a percentage of v V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max than at v V̇O₂ₘₐₓ V ˙ O 2max . The accurate calculation of MAS can be used to predict running performances with lower errors (Running Energy Reserve Index Paper).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balasekaran et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy trained athletes (n=40). Endurance training vs. Sprint training was evaluated on Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS) (95% CI 2.091-4.515, p=≤0.001). Endurance-trained athletes achieved a significantly higher Maximal Aerobic Speed (16.07 km/h) compared to sprint-trained athletes (12.77 km/h).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: