Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was fourfold: to describe the cardiovascular capacity of amateur trail runners measured by a maximum incremental test both in-laboratory and in-field conditions; to analyze the physical and physiological performance of the runners in a trail competition; to analyze the associations, if any, between the laboratory or field tests with competition performance; and to describe the associations between the laboratory and the field tests.METHODS: Eleven mountain runners, 10 men and 1 woman (39.0±9.3 years) participated in this study.RESULTS: Significant relationships were observed between competition time with velocity associated with the second ventilatory threshold (VelVT2) (r=-0.908, P=0.005) and maximum velocity (VelMax) (r=-0.952, P=0.001, N.=7) obtained in the laboratory test. Similarly, significant correlations were observed between competition time with time to exhaustion (Tlim) in the incremental field test (r=-0.904, P<0.0001), the Edwards load (EdwardsTRIMP) in the field test (r=-0.930, P=0.001) and the perceived exertion load during competition (RPECL) (r=-0.720, P=0.019). Finally, significant associations were obtained between the Tlim in the field test with VelVT2 (r=0.941, P=0.002) and VelMax (r=0.804, P=0.029) measured in the incremental laboratory test.CONCLUSIONS: These findings show high associations between both the incremental laboratory and field tests with competition performance, and between the incremental laboratory test and the field test. Both tests could therefore be considered good predictors of mountain runners’ competition performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aritzeta et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: