Assessment of maximal aerobic speed in runners with different performance levels: Interest of a new intermittent running test

Is test specificity the issue in assessing aerobic fitness and performance of runners? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Various tests have been developed to evaluate aerobic fitness and performance of runners. However, a systematic understanding of which methods are more accurate is necessary to provide coaches and the sports sciences community with useful and confident outcomes. This study aims to summarize the evidence regarding the validity, reliability and sensitivity of tests for measuring aerobic fitness and performance in runners of several background of training.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was conducted of Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus up to 31st December 2022 according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies that reported findings about tests covering maximal aerobic speed, final velocity achieved during the test, average running speed or other method of evaluating the reference speed during the test were included. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included articles using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). The tests were categorized into continuous incremental tests, intermittent tests and time-trial test.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 studies met eligibility criteria. These studies contained three background of training: track and road runners (N.=15), trail runners (N.=7) and inexperienced runners (N.=1). Criterion validity was assessed in 73% of the studies, while only 41% of studies examined convergent validity. The majority of the reviewed studies (87%) ignored test-retest reliability. Test sensitivity was not reported in any study.

CONCLUSIONS

At least one aerobic fitness and performance test was identified for each types of background of training. However, some methodological aspects were not provided in the included articles. Most studies examined at least one aspect of validity (i.e., criterion or convergent-related validity), whilst few studies investigated test-retest reliability. Researchers and practitioners can use the information provided in this systematic review to select appropriate tests.

Normative reference and cut-offs values of maximal aerobic speed-20 m shuttle run test and maximal oxygen uptake for Tunisian adolescent (elite) soccer players

This study aimed to develop reference curves of aerobic parameters of 20 m shuttle run test for Tunisian soccer players. The study was conducted in the 2022/2023 pre-season. The reference curves of the maximal aerobic speed (MAS) and the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) were developed according to the Lambda, Mu and Sigma (LMS) method, using data from 742 Tunisian premier league soccer players aged 11-18 years. Measured variables included: weight, height, body mass index and maximal heart rate (HRmax). HRmax was measured when the participants completed the maximal aerobic speed. VO2max was estimated using the 20 m shuttle run test protocol (speed increment every minute). Our results presented the smoothed percentiles (3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 97th) of MAS (km/h) and VO2max (ml/kg•min⁻1) according to age. In addition, raw data showed that VO2 max was positively correlated with age (r = 0.333; P < 0.001), height (cm) (r = 0.279; P < 0.001), weight (kg) (r = 0.266; P < 0.001), practice period (years) (r = 0.324; P < 0.001) and BMI (kg/m2) (r = 0.10; P < 0.05). However, it was negatively correlated to HRmax (bpm) (r = -0.247; P < 0.001). Only the measurements within the age group [12-12.99] are significantly higher (p < 0.001; ES = 0.63) compared with the previous age group [11-11.99]. Finally, regarding prevalence, our findings showed that 15.5 % of the players in our sample had VO2max values above the 87.7th percentile cut-off, while only 0.3 % exceeded the 99.18th percentile. The development of normative curves could help coaches and physical trainers to more accurately detect weaknesses in the aerobic performance of their players in order to sustain high-intensity repetitive actions during a soccer match.

Comparison between 2,000 m and 3,000 m time trials to estimate the maximal aerobic speed for collegiate runners

Considered to be a lesser resource burden, 2,000 and 3,000 m time trials (TTs) have been recognized as alternatives to accurately estimate the maximal aerobic speed (MAS) derived from laboratory-graded exercise testing (GXT). Previous studies have commonly used ordinary least squares linear regression and the Bland–Altman method to compare the agreement between MAS and TT performance. The agreement analysis aimed to identify the systematic bias between the results of the two methods, rather than to identify similarities. The model II regression technique (ordinary least product regression) is increasingly favored by researchers in the field of physiology. Thus, we aimed to 1) use the ordinary least product (OLP) and bootstrap methods to determine the agreement between the average speed of 2,000 m TT (S2000) and the average speed of 3,000 m TT (S3000) and 2) determine whether S2000 or S3000 can accurately approximate the GXT-derived MAS. It is used as an alternative to estimate the MAS and prescribe training intensity. Thirty-five Beijing Sport University recreational male runners completed an MAS test in laboratory settings, followed by 2,000 and 3,000 m TTs randomly, with a 7-day interval. OLP regression was used to analyze the agreement between the GXT-derived MAS and S2000 and S3000. The bootstrap method was used to calibrate the equations. Differences between the GXT-derived MAS and S2000 and S3000 were compared using a one-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc analysis (Bonferroni). The significance level was p < 0.05. The results showed that before calibration, the 95% CI of the OLP regression intercept and slope between the GXT-derived MAS and S2000 and S3000 did not include 0 and 1.00, respectively. These values, after calibration, included 0 and 1.00, respectively. Post hoc analysis revealed that S3000 closely approximated the GXT-derived MAS and underestimated 0.46% (0.06 km h⁻¹ and p > 0.05), and S2000 overestimated 5.49% (0.81 km h⁻¹ and p < 0.05) by the MAS. It concluded that the 3,000 m TT performance approximated the GXT-derived MAS compared to the 2,000 m TT performance. There exist fixed bias and proportional bias between the GXT-derived MAS and TT performance. More attention should be applied to calibration when using the TT performance to estimate the MAS.