Novel track field test to determine Vpeak, relationship with treadmill test and 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the peak running velocity on the track field (Vpeak_TF) based on the laboratory treadmill test (Vpeak_T), and relate the Vpeak values as well as their correlation with the 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners.

Method

Twenty male trained endurance runners (age: 29.5 ± 5.3 years; V̇O2max: 67.5±17.6 ml · kg-1·min-1) performed three maximum incremental tests to determine the Vpeak: one for Vpeak_T determination and two to obtain Vpeak_TF on the official track field (400 m), and a 10-km running performance. During the incremental tests, maximum heart rate (HRmax), maximal rating of perceived exertion (RPEmax), and peak lactate concentration (LApeak) were determined.

Results

The results showed significant difference between the Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T (18.1 ± 1.2 vs. 19.2 ± 1.5 km·h-1, respectively), as well as the total time of the tests, the distance traveled and the RPEmax determined during the tests. A high correlation was observed between the Vpeak values (r = 0.94), and between Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T with 10-km running performance (r = -0.95 vs. r = -0.89, respectively).

Conclusions

The good agreement and association with Vpeak_T and high correlation with 10-km running performance demonstrate that the novel track field test is efficient for Vpeak_TF determination.

About the Authors:

Francisco de A. Manoel

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Physical Education, Cesumar University, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1841-5637

Cecilia S. Peserico

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Education, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-1850

Fabiana A. Machado

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Physical Education, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil, Associate Post-Graduate Program in Physical Education UEM/UEL, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil, Department of Physiological Sciences, Post-Graduate Program of Physiological Sciences, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2235-577X

Introduction

The assessment of aerobic variables for the prescription of endurance running is important when considering the training process [1, 2], to determine possible adaptations and prescriptions of training intensities. Although these variables are generally determined in laboratories under controlled conditions [3, 4], the applicability of the results in daily practice conditions is still questionable [5]. Therefore, it is more practical and ecological to determine the variables in an environment directly related to training practice using track field tests [5, 6].

The peak running velocity (Vpeak) is considered an indicator of aerobic fitness, is highly reproducible when determined on treadmill [7], has a high correlation with endurance running performance [8–10] and is sensitive to the training effects [11–13].

Despite the effectiveness of this test in determining Peak running velocity on the laboratory treadmill test Vpeak_T, it is usually performed under laboratory conditions, which tend to relatively deviate from the reality of training and competition for runners [5, 8, 9]. Small differences in the Vpeak values could impair the entire training program and underestimate or overestimate the required exercise intensity [14–16]. However, some studies have not compared Vpeak_T with the Vpeak obtained on the track field (Vpeak_TF) test based on this well-established laboratory treadmill test [8, 9].

Previous studies have compared variables commonly used for endurance training prescription and monitoring (i.e., maximum aerobic speed—MAS, Vpeak) which were determined during maximum incremental running tests performed on the treadmill and track field [6, 17, 18]. However, it should be noted that the studies mentioned above used different designs. Thus, the determination of the Vpeak_TF, as well as its relationship with Vpeak_T and endurance running performance, has not yet been determined using a well-established laboratory treadmill test. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that determined the Vpeak in trained endurance runners on the track field using the same protocol established for the treadmill in the design proposed by Machado et al. [9]. The result of the study will be important for coaches and athletes, because with the determination of this variable it is possible to prescribe training sessions both continuous and interval for endurance runners.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the peak running velocity on the track field (Vpeak_TF) based on the laboratory treadmill test (Vpeak_T), and relate the Vpeak values as well as their correlation with the 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners. We hypothesized that although the Vpeak_TF is different from Vpeak_T, they have a good relationship; additionally, Vpeak_TF have a higher correlation to the 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners.

Methods

Participants

Twenty male trained endurance runners [mean ± SD (age: 29.5 ± 5.3 years, weight: 61.1 ± 6.9 kg, height: 174.6 ± 4.9 cm, V̇O2max: 63.7 ± 14.5 ml·kg-1·min-1)] with 10-km time running performance of 35.2 ± 1.4 minutes, and mean velocity (MV) of 17.1 ± 0.9 km∙h-1 (which represented ≅ 74.6% of the MV of the World record, respectively) took place on this study. All participants were experience in competitive long-distance races with training frequency of 6 ± 1 days∙wk-1, and distance of 96.4 ± 23.4 km∙wk-1, who presented medical clearance to perform exhaustive physical tests. The article adheres to the ethical standards in sports and exercise science research, with the consent of the participant informed in writing to carry out the study and anonymity of its data [19]. The experimental protocol was approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (#1.889.751/2017) and all participants learned information about a methodology of work, as well as risks and collateral.

Study design

After being familiarized with the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale and the equipment to be used in the evaluations (e.g., motorized treadmill), the participants performed one maximum incremental test on the treadmill under laboratory conditions (temperature = 21 ± 1°C and relative humidity = 55–60%) and two maximum incremental tests on the official track field for Vpeak determination. The first test was carried out to adapt the participants to the track field test, and the second one was used to determine the Vpeak_TF. In addition, 10-km running performance was performed on the official track field. The tests were performed at the same time of the day (between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m.) under similar climatic conditions (temperature = 25–29°C and relative humidity = 50–60%) and separated by 1-week interval. The total time, heart rate (HR), RPE and lactate concentrations ([La]) were monitored during all tests.

Determination of Vpeak on the treadmill (Vpeak_T)

To determine the Vpeak_T, a continuous and incremental test was used with velocity increments of 1 km·h−1 every 3-min without breaks between stages. The Vpeak_T was assessed on a motorized treadmill (Super ATL; Inbrasport®, Porto Alegre, Brazil) with a gradient set at 1% [20]. After 3-min warm-up walking at 6 km·h−1, the test started with an initial velocity of 8 km·h−1, followed by an increase of 1 km·h−1 every 3-min until volitional exhaustion (i.e., participant was unable to continue running) [9], and when at least two of the following criteria were met: (1) peak lactate concentration (LApeak) ≥ 8 mmol L−1, (2) maximum HR (HRmax) ≥ 100% of endurance-trained age-predicted HRmax using the age-based “206–0.7 × age” equation [21] and (3) maximum RPE (RPEmax) ≥ 18 in the 6–20 Borg scale. If the last stage was not completed, the Vpeak_T was calculated based on the partial time completed in the last stage achieved from the equation proposed by Kuipers et al. [22]: Vpeak_T = Vcomplete + (Inc × t/T), in which Vcomplete is the running velocity of the last complete stage, Inc is the velocity increment (i.e., 1 km·h−1), t is the number of seconds sustained during the incomplete stage, and T is the number of seconds required to complete a stage (i.e., 180 s).

HR was monitored during all tests (Polar® RS800sd; Kempele, Finland) and HRmax was defined as the highest HR value recorded during the test. RPE was also monitored during all tests by using a 6–20 Borg scale [23], and the highest RPE value was adopted as the RPEmax. Earlobe capillary blood samples (25 μl) were collected into a capillary tube at the end of the tests (time zero of recovery) and at the third, fifth, and seventh minutes of passive recovery with participants seated in a comfortable chair. The [La] was evaluated only at the end of the test and LApeak was defined for each participant as the highest post-exercise [La] value.

Determination of Vpeak on the track field (Vpeak_TF).

The test used to determine the Vpeak_TF was the same as the one used for the determination of Vpeak_T. The test was a continuous and incremental test was used with increments of 1 km·h-1 every 3-min without breaks between stages. The velocity during the test was controlled by sound signals. Participants should cross the lines marked by cones, which were distributed on the track field every 25 m, with at least one foot simultaneously to the beep [24]. The interval between the beeps at each stage decreased every three minutes, and the higher beep indicate that a new stage was starting. Each three minutes was a time reduction between beeps with the objective to increment the velocity, that is, at each velocity increment, the participants should exceed a greater number of cones (travel a greater distance) in the interval of 3-min compared to the previous velocity (Table 1). The test was finished by voluntary exhaustion of the participant or when the evaluator identified that the participant failed to cross the reference lines with one of two feet for two consecutive times [24].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Test characteristics for determination of Vpeak on the track field (Vpeak_TF).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.t001

10-km running performance

Performance was undertaken on the track field preceded by 10-min warm-up. Participants were requested to run as fast as possible and the time was recorded every 400 m. Mineral water was provided ad libitum in cups throughout trials, so that participants could hydrate themselves as they were used to do in long-distance races. The 10-km mean velocity (MV) for each trial was calculated by dividing the total distance by the trial duration. Additionally, partial MVs were calculated in three phases: (1) start (first 400 m), (2) middle (400–9600 m) and (3) end (last 400 m), as previously reported [25, 26].

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS® v.20, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data normality was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The comparisons between the Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T tests were performed by the Student’s paired t-test. To examine the correlation and confidence interval (CI) between both Vpeak and 10-km running performance, Pearson product-moment correlations were performed. Correlation coefficients (R) were interpreted using the following qualitative descriptors: trivial (< 0.1), small (< 0.3), moderate (0.3–0.5), large (0.5–0.7), very large (0.7–0.9), nearly perfect (> 0.9), and perfect (1.0) [27]. Simple linear regression analyses were used to generate a predictive equation Vpeak_TF and from Vpeak_T. The Bland-Altman analysis [28] was used to calculate the bias (difference between the means) between the Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T with the respective limits of agreement for a 95% interval (LoA = bias ± 1.96 mean ± SD). Hopkins spreadsheets were used to calculate intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results for MV recorded at the three different points during performances were compared using two-factor ANOVA for repeated measures followed by the LSD post hoc test for multiple comparisons. For all analyses a significance level of P < 0.05 was adopted.

Results

There was no significant difference between Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T as well as for the total time of the tests, the distance travelled and RPEmax determined during the tests, with higher values obtained on the treadmill test (Table 2). A higher ICC values was found for Vpeak values (Table 2).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Comparison, association and agreement between variables obtained during the track field and treadmill tests (N = 20).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.t002

Fig 1A shows the good agreement between the Vpeak values. Fig 1B demonstrates a significant and high linear correlation between the Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T. Assuming a standard error of 0.36 km·h−1, the resulting equation was:

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1.

A) Bland-Altman plots indicating the agreement between the Vpeak values obtained on track field and the treadmill tests. 1B) Linear regression relationship between the Vpeak values determined on the treadmill running and track field tests. Note: Vpeak_TF Peak running velocity on the track field; Vpeak_T Peak running velocity on the laboratory treadmill test. *P < 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.g001

Fig 2 shows the association between both Vpeak and the 10-km running performance. High and significant correlation was found between 10-km running performance time and Vpeak_TF (r = -0.95; CI = -0.88 to -0.98) and Vpeak_T (r = -0.89; CI = -0.74 to -0.96), respectively.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Correlation between both Vpeak values with 10-km running performance time.

Note: Vpeak_TF, Peak running velocity on the track field; Vpeak_T, Peak running velocity on the laboratory treadmill test. *P < 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.g002

Fig 3 shows the variation of MV according to distance, which helped determine that the participants used the “U” running pace as a test strategy in 10-km running performance.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Mean Velocity during the different phases adopted by the participants of the present study for 10-km running performance.

Note: MV, Mean Velocity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.g003

Discussion

The aim of this study was to determine the peak running velocity on the track field based on the laboratory treadmill test, and relate the Vpeak values as well as their correlation with the 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners. The main findings were that despite the difference between Vpeak values both Vpeak values were associated and have good agreement, and Vpeak_TF had a higher correlation with the 10-km running performance than Vpeak_T, which confirm the initial hypothesis.

The results showed that Vpeak_TF was significantly lower compared to Vpeak_T. As demonstrated in the present study, some researchers compared incremental tests performed on the treadmill and track field and observed higher values for the variables (e.g., MAS and Vpeak) determined on the treadmill [6, 17, 18]. Simillarly, Pallares et al. [6] showed that Vpeak and MAS obtained on the treadmill test (increments of 1 km·h-1 every 1-min) were similar when compared to the values measured in a new short track test (same treadmill protocol) performed in the field. Metsios et al. [18] observed that the MAS determined during the treadmill test (increments of 1 km·h-1 every 2-min) was overestimated by 8% when compared with the track field test (increments of 0.5 km·h-1 every 1-min), which is very similar to the present investigation (≅ 6%). However, previous studies [6, 17, 18] compared protocols in the treadmill and track field with different designs. According to Kuipers et al. [22], it is important to use the same test design for comparison and validation of a given variable, such as Vpeak, which is directly influenced by the protocol design [8, 9, 21].

Studies point out that there is a great difference between running on the treadmill and running in the field/track [29–31]. Considerable kinematic differences exist, and the mechanisms of the march are involved in the treadmill race different from those of the race on the track [32–34], as well as biomechanical differences (e.g., when running on a treadmill, the pass frequency is higher compared to the track, while the stride length is higher on the track) [29]. Although the study did not evaluate these factors, we consider that they may have contributed to the final differences found between the tests to determine. Furthermore, we highlight that the environmental conditions, which are variables that are better controlled when the tests are performed on the treadmill, contribute to the differences between Vpeak_TF and Vpeak_T (r = -0.95 *) in the present study [35]. However, it is important to emphasize that the data obtained from the track field tests were closer to the competitive reality and training of the runners [36].

Despite the differences between both Vpeak tests, the ICC and Bland-Altman demonstrated that Vpeak_TF is highly associated with the well-established Vpeak_T; however, the Bland-Altman demonstrated a bias of 1.1 km·h-1 and a percentage difference of 6.1% between the Vpeak values. In contrast, Pallarés et al. [6] with trained male athletes demonstrated that the Vpeak determined by the novel short track test had high ICC (0.96), low bias (-0.1) and a % Diff of -0.6% when related to the Vpeak obtained on the treadmill using the same protocol. This great similarity between the two protocols demonstrated by Pallarés et al. [6] can be related to the fact that the authors used a gas analyzer for the treadmill test. It is important to emphasize that the present study used clean protocols (i.e., without using gas analyzers in both tests), which contributed to the runners staying longer on the treadmill test and caused the difference between the Vpeak values.

In relation to other variables determined in the Vpeak tests, it was observed significant higher values for RPEmax when determined on treadmill compared to track field. This can be justified by the fact that runners reach an extra stage during the treadmill test, in addition, runners have a perception of greater velocity on the treadmill due to the need for greater balance and coordination, the increased demand for attention and vision, and the fear of falling [37]. However, no significant difference was observed for the HRmax and LApeak values, demonstrating that both incremental protocols attained similar maximal effort responses. The similar result was observed by Pallarés et al. [6] who also found no difference in HRmax on comparing incremental tests on the track field and treadmill. It should be noted that these variables were used to identify the physiological responses generated by effort, in addition to being used as a parameter to identify the maximum effort during the incremental test [38, 39].

Another important finding of the present study is that the Vpeak_TF showed a higher correlation with the 10-km running performance than the Vpeak_T (r = -0.95 vs. -0.89, respectively), demonstrating that improvements in the Vpeak_TF during a training period can directly reflect performance changes. Previous studies also observed high correlations (between -0.80 and -0.93) between Vpeak_T and performances ranging from 3 to 90 km [9, 10, 40], however, no study has demonstrated the correlation between Vpeak_TF and performance. It is suggested that the high correlation of Vpeak_TF is because the test location (i.e., outdoor) was similar to that of the performance, and was where the runners usually compete. This result also reinforces the great practical application of Vpeak_TF as a training prescription variable.

To complete a 10 km performance, participants adopted the "U" strategy [41]. This strategy is commonly used by moderate and high-performance runners [26, 42]. After assessing the contribution of some physiological and muscular variables to the rhythm strategy adopted during the 10 km running performance, Bertuzzi et al. [25] concluded that Vpeak, V̇O2max and 1 maximum repetition are the variables that best explain the performance in the intermediate phase (0.4–9.6 km) and only Vpeak in the final phase (9.6–10 km), reaffirming its high performance prediction capacity for this type of test.

Despite the important findings, this study had some limitations such the absence of other test using the gas analyzer to obtain ventilatory parameters; however, future studies can investigate the relationship between Vpeak_TF and ventilatory parameters. Other limitation was the lack of a dietary recall to control and standardize the same diet before the testing sessions; however, it was recommended for the participants to maintain the same diet pattern before each test.

The results of this study have important practical implications for endurance coaches, practitioners, and runners in terms of the prescription of aerobic training loads on the track. This is because of the practicality and ecological validity of the Vpeak_TF test, which is determined in an environment directly related to the training location of runners. Further, this test is suitable for the simultaneous evaluation of several runners. In order to prescribe endurance training using the variable, it is suggested to use the intensity of 75 ± 4% of Vpeak for continuous training sessions and intensities of 100% ± 2% of Vpeak for long interval training session [11–13] and 120% ± 2% of Vpeak for short interval training session [13].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the good agreement and association with Vpeak_T and the high correlation with 10-km running performance demonstrate that the novel track field test is efficient for Vpeak_TF determination. Future studies should verify the reproducibility of this novel track field test in runners with different levels of performance.

Supporting information

S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants for their time and effort in this study, and the Med. Cardiologist Geraldo Nogueira by clinical support.

Citation: Manoel FdA, Peserico CS, Machado FA (2022) Novel track field test to determine Vpeak, relationship with treadmill test and 10-km running performance in trained endurance runners. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0260338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260338

References

1. Buchheit M, Chivot A, Parouty J, Mercier D, Al Haddad H, Laursen PB, et al. Monitoring endurance running performance using cardiac parasympathetic function. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 108: 1153–1167. pmid:20033207

2. Midgley AW, Mcnaughton LR, Jones AM. Training to enhance the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance. Sports Med. 2007; 37: 857–880. pmid:17887811

3. Highton JM, Lame KL, Twist C, Nicholas C. The reliability and validity of short-distance sprint performance assessed on a nonmotorized treadmill. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26: 458–465. pmid:22233794

4. Morin JB, Seve P. Sprint running performance: comparison between treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 111: 1695–1703. pmid:21210279

5. Massini DA, Caritá RA, Siqueira LOC, Simionato AR, Denadai BS, Filho DMP. Assessment of critical velocity in track and treadmill: physiological profiles and relationship with 3000-meter performance. Rev. bras. Cineantropom. Desempenho. 2018; 20: 432–444.

6. Pallares JG, Cerezuela-Espejo V, Navarro RM, Martinez-cava A, Conesa E, Courel-Ibánez J. A New Short Track Test to Estimate the V̇O2max and Maximal Aerobic Speed in Well-Trained Runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33: 1216–1221. pmid:31033773

7. Peserico CS, Zagatto AM, Machado FA. Reliability of peak running speeds obtained from different incremental treadmill protocols. J Sports Sci. 2014; 32: 993–1000. pmid:24499238

8. Peserico CS, Zagatto AM, Machado FA. Evaluation of the Best-designed Graded Exercise Test to Assess Peak Treadmill Speed. Int. J. Sports Med. 2015; 36: 1–6.

9. Machado FA, Kravchychyn ACP, Peserico CS, Da Silva DF, Mezzaroba PV. Incremental test design, peak ’aerobic’ running speed and endurance performance in runners. J Sci Med Sport. 2013; 16: 577–582. pmid:23379988

10. Noakes TD., Myburgh KH, Schall R. Peak treadmill running velocity during the VO2 max test predicts running performance. J Sports Sci. 1990; 8: 35–45. pmid:2359150

11. Da Silva DF, Ferraro ZM, Adamo KB, Machado FA. Endurance running training individually-guided by hrv in untrained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33: 736–746. pmid:28570494

12. Peserico CS, Zagatto AM, Machado FA. Effects of Endurance Running Training Associated With Photobiomodulation on 5-Km Performance and Muscle Soreness: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. Front Physiol. 2019; 10: 211. pmid:30890962

13. Manoel FA, Da Silva DF, De Lima JRP, Machado FA. Peak velocity and its time limit are as good as the velocity associated with VO2max for training prescription in runners. Sports Med Int Open. 2017; 1: 8–15.

14. Billat V, Flechet B, Petit B, Muriaux G, Koralsztein J. Interval training at VO2max: effects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999; 31: 156–163. pmid:9927024

15. Smith TP, Mcnaughton LR, Marshall KJ. Effects of 4-wk training using Vmax/Tmax on VO2max and performance in athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999; 31: 892–896. pmid:10378918

16. Smith TP, Coombes JS, Geraghty DP. Optimising high-intensity treadmill training using the running speed at maximal O2 uptake and the time for which this can be maintained. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003; 89: 337–343. pmid:12736843

17. Cappa DF, García GC, Secchi JD, Maddigan ME. The relationship between an athlete’s maximal aerobic speed determined in a laboratory and their final speed reached during a field test (UNCa Test). J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2014; 54: 424–431. pmid:25034546

18. Metsios GS, Flouris AD, Koutedakis Y, Nevill A. Criterion-related validity and test-retest reliability of the 20m square shuttle test. J Sci Med Sport. 2008; 11: 214–217. pmid:17544842

19. Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med. 2019; 40: 813–817. pmid:31614381

20. Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci. 1996; 14: 321–327. pmid:8887211

21. Tanaka H, Monahan K.D., & Seals D.R. (2001). Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 37(1), 153–156. pmid:11153730

22. Kuipers H, Rietjens G, Verstappen F, Schoenmakers H, Hofman G. Effects of stage duration in incremental running tests on physiological variables. Int J Sports Med. 2003; 24: 486–491. pmid:12968205

23. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14: 377–381. pmid:7154893

24. Léger L, Boucher R. An indirect continuous running multistage field test: the Université de Montreal track test. Can. J. Sport Sci. 1980; 5: 77–84. pmid:7389053

25. Bertuzzi R, Lima-Silva AE, Pires FO, Damasceno MV, Bueno S, Pasqua LA, et al. Pacing strategy determinants during a 10-km running time trial: contributions of perceived effort, physiological, and muscular parameters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2014; 28, 1688–1696. pmid:24343329

26. Lima-Silva AE, Bertuzzi RC, Pires FO, Barros RV, Gagliardi JF, Hammond J, et al. Effect of performance level on pacing strategy during a 10-km running race. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2010; 108, 1045–53. pmid:20012450

27. Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41: 3–13. pmid:19092709

28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 327: 307–310. pmid:2868172

29. Chocklingam N, Chatterley F, Healy AC, Greenhalgh A, Branthwaite HR. Comparison of pelvic complex kinematics during treadmill and overground walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: 2302–8. pmid:22365476

30. Kivi DM, Maraj BK, Gervais PA. Kinematic analysis of high- speed treadmill sprinting over a range of velocities. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002; 34: 662–666. pmid:11932576

31. Schache AG, Blanch PD, Rath DA, Wrigley TV, Starr R, Bennel KLA. Comparison of overground and treadmill running for measuring the three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbo–pelvic–hip complex. Clin Biomech. 2001; 16: 667–80. pmid:11535348

32. Fellin RE, Manal K, Davis IS. Comparison of lower extremity kinematic curves during overground and treadmill running. J Appl Biomech. 2010; 26: 407–14. pmid:21245500

33. Milgrom C, Finestone A, Segev S, Olin C, Arndt T, Ekenman I. Are overground or treadmill runners more likely to sustain tibial stress fracture? Br J Sports Med. 2003; 37: 160–163. pmid:12663360

34. Nigg BM, de Boer RW, Fisher VA. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995; 27: 98–105. pmid:7898346

35. Highton JM, Lame HL, Twist C, Nicholas C. The reliability and validity of short-distance sprint performance assessed on a nonmotorized treadmill. J Strength Cond. Res. 2012; 26: 458–465. pmid:22233794

36. Nummela A, Hamalainen I, Rusko H. Comparison of maximal anaerobic running tests on a treadmill and track. J Sports Sci. 2007; 25: 87–96. pmid:17127584

37. Kong PW, Koh TMC, Tan WCR, Wang YS. Unmatched perception of speed when running overground and on a treadmill. Gait Posture. 2012; 36: 46–48. pmid:22357398

38. Hugget DL, Connely DM, Overend TJ. Maximal Aerobic Capacity Testing of Older Adults: A Critical Review. J Gerontol A. Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005; 60: 57–66. pmid:15741284

39. Fernandes RJ, Billat VL, Cruz AC, Colaço PJ, Cardoso CS, Vilas-Boas JP. Does net energy cost of swimming effect time to exhaustion at the individual’s maximal oxygen consumption velocity? J Sport Med Phys Fit. 2006; 46: 373–380.

40. Slattery K, Wallace L, Murphy A, Coutts A. Physiological determinants of three kilometer running performance in experiences triathletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2006; 20: 47–52.

41. Tucker R, Lambert MI, Noakes TD. An analysis of pacing strategies during men’s world-record performances in track athletics. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2006;1 3, 233–245. pmid:19116437

42. Manoel FA, Figueiredo DH, Machado FA. Can the endurance training change the pacing strategy during 10 km running performance?. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2018; 18: 127–136.