A Novel Field Test to Determine Critical Speed
Galbraith A, Hopker JG*, Jobson SA and Passfield L
Centre for Sports Studies, University of Kent, Kent, England
- *Corresponding Author:
- Dr. James G. Hopker
Centre for Sports Studies
University of Kent, Kent
ME4 4AG, England
Tel: +44 1634 88 88 14
Fax: +44 1634 88 88 90
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: September 04, 2011; Accepted Date: October 28, 2011; Published Date: October 31, 2011
Citation: Galbraith A, Hopker JG, Jobson SA, Passfield L (2011) A Novel Field Test to Determine Critical Speed. J Sport Medic Doping Studie 1:101. doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000101
Copyright: © 2011 Galbraith A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of a novel field test of critical running speed (CS). Ten trained male distance runners completed a familiarisation trial plus three separate experimental trials on a standard 400 m athletics track. Each trial consisted of three distances (1200, 2400 and 3600 metres) that were selected to produce finishing times in the region of 3, 7 and 12 minutes respectively. Participants were instructed to cover the set distance in the fastest time possible. Participants rested for 30 minutes between efforts. Data were modelled using the linear distance-time model, described by the equation: d = (CS x t) + ARC, where: d = distance run (m), t = running time (s), and ARC = anaerobic running capacity (m). Results demonstrated a coefficient of variation (CV) of 2.0% (95% confidence limit (95% CL): 1.4–3.8%) for trials 2–1 and 1.3% (95% CL: 0.9–2.4%) for trials 3–2. There was no significant difference in CS (m·s -1 ) across trials (P<0.05). The limits of agreement were ±0.27m·s -1 of the measure for trials 2–1 and ±0.18 m·s -1 for trials 3–2. ARC proved to be less reliable with a group CV of 18.4% (95% CL: 13.5– 39.9%) for trials 2–1 and 9.8% (95% CL: 7.0–19.6%) for trials 3–2. Although the assessment of ARC is less reliable, CV data are similar to those reported previously during laboratory-based testing.