Vmax estimate from three-parameter critical velocity models: validity and impact on 800 m running performance prediction.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of maximal velocity (Vmax) estimated from three-parameter systems models, and to compare the predictive value of two- and three-parameter models for the 800 m. Seventeen trained male subjects (VO2max=66.54+/-7.29 ml min(-1) kg(-1)) performed five randomly ordered constant velocity tests (CVT), a maximal velocity test (mean velocity over the last 10 m portion of a 40 m sprint) and a 800 m time trial (V 800 m). Five systems models (two three-parameter and three two-parameter) were used to compute V max (three-parameter models), critical velocity (CV), anaerobic running capacity (ARC) and V800m from times to exhaustion during CVT. Vmax estimates were significantly lower than (0.19<Bias<0.24 m s(-1)) and poorly associated (0.44<r<0.49) with actual Vmax (8.43+/-0.33 m s(-1)). Critical velocity (CV) alone explained 40-62% of the variance in V800m. Combining CV with other parameters of each model to produce a calculated V800m resulted in a clear improvement of this relationship (0.83<r<0.94). Three-parameter models had a better association (0.93<r<0.94) and a lower bias (0.00<Bias<0.04 m s(-1)) with actual V800 m (5.87+/-0.49 m s(-1)) than two-parameter models (0.83<r<0.91, 0.06<Bias<0.20). If three-parameter models appear to have a better predictive value for short duration events such as the 800 m, the fact the Vmax is not associated with the ability it is supposed to reflect suggests that they are more empirical than systems models.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes