Search

This study examined the predictive quality of intervals performed at maximal sustainable effort to predict 3-km and 10-km running times. In addition, changes in interval performance and associated changes in running performance were investigated. Either 6-week (10-km group, n=29) or 2-week (3-km group, n=16) interval training periods were performed by recreational runners. A linear model was created for both groups based on the running speed of the first 6×3-min interval session and the test run of the preceding week (T1). The accuracy of the model was tested with the running speed of the last interval session and the test run after the training period (T2). Pearson correlation was used to analyze relationships between changes in running speeds during the tests and interval sessions. At T2, the mean absolute percentage error of estimate for 3-km and 10-km test times were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively. The change in running speed of intervals and test runs from T1 to T2 correlated (r=0.75, p<0.001) in both datasets. Thus, the maximal sustainable effort intervals were able to predict 3-km and 10-km running performance and training adaptations with good accuracy, and current results demonstrate the potential usefulness of intervals as part of the monitoring process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated acute responses and post 24-h recovery to four running sessions performed at different intensity zones by supine heart rate variability, countermovement jump, and a submaximal running test. A total of 24 recreationally endurance-trained male subjects performed 90 min low-intensity (LIT), 30 min moderate-intensity (MOD), 6×3 min high-intensity interval (HIIT) and 10×30 s supramaximal-intensity interval (SMIT) exercises on a treadmill. Heart rate variability decreased acutely after all sessions, and the decrease was greater after MOD compared to LIT and SMIT (p<0.001; p<0.01) and HIIT compared to LIT (p<0.01). Countermovement jump decreased only after LIT (p<0.01) and SMIT (p<0.001), and the relative changes were different compared to MOD (p<0.01) and HIIT (p<0.001). Countermovement jump remained decreased at 24 h after SMIT (p<0.05). Heart rate during the submaximal running test rebounded below the baseline 24 h after all sessions (p<0.05), while the rating of perceived exertion during the running test remained elevated after HIIT (p<0.05) and SMIT (p<0.01). The current results highlight differences in the physiological demands of the running sessions, and distinct recovery patterns of the measured aspects of performance. Based on these results, assessments of performance and recovery from multiple perspectives may provide valuable information for endurance athletes, and help to improve the quality of training monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Nummela Keränen to a letter to the editor about his article "Factors Related to Top Running Speed and Economy," in the previous issue is presented.