4.6 Article

Determinants of 800-m and 1500-m running performance using allometric models

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 345-350

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a83dc

关键词

middle-distance running; VO2max; economy; curvilinear power function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To identify the optimal aerobic determinants of elite, middle-distance running (MDR) performance, using proportional allometric models. Methods: Sixty-two national and international male and female 800-m and 1500-m runners undertook an incremental exercise test to volitional exhaustion. Mean submaximal running economy (ECON), speed at lactate threshold (speedLT), maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max), and speed associated with VO2max (speedVO(2max)) were paired with best performance times recorded within 30 d. The data were analyzed using a proportional power-function ANCOVA model. Results: The analysis identified significant differences in running speeds with main effects for sex and distance, with VO2max and ECON as the covariate predictors (P < 0.0001). The results suggest a proportional curvilinear association between running speed and the ratio (VO2max.ECON-0.71) (0.35) explaining 95.9% of the variance in performance. The model was cross-validated with a further group of highly trained MDR, demonstrating strong agreement (95% limits, 0.05 +/- 0.29 m.s(-1)) between predicted and actual performance speeds (R-2 = 93.6%). The model indicates that for a male 1500-m runner with a VO2max of 3.81 L.min(-1) and ECON of 15 L.km(-1) to improve from 250 to 240 s, it would require a change in VO2max from 3.81 to 4.28 L.min(-1), an increase of Delta 0.47 L.min(-1). However, improving by the same margin of 10 s from 225 to 215 s would require a much greater increase in VO2max, from 5.14 to 5.85 L.min(-1) an increase of Delta 0.71 L.min(-1) (where ECON remains constant). Conclusion: A proportional curvilinear ratio Of VO2max divided by ECON explains 95.9% of the variance in MDR performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据