| Title |
Prescribing 6-weeks of running training using parameters from a self-paced maximal oxygen uptake protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-018-3814-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James S. Hogg, James G. Hopker, Sarah L. Coakley, Alexis R. Mauger |
| Abstract |
The self-paced maximal oxygen uptake test (SPV) may offer effective training prescription metrics for athletes. This study aimed to examine whether SPV-derived data could be used for training prescription. Twenty-four recreationally active male and female runners were randomly assigned between two training groups: (1) Standardised (STND) and (2) Self-Paced (S-P). Participants completed 4 running sessions a week using a global positioning system-enabled (GPS) watch: 2 × interval sessions; 1 × recovery run; and 1 × tempo run. STND had training prescribed via graded exercise test (GXT) data, whereas S-P had training prescribed via SPV data. In STND, intervals were prescribed as 6 × 60% of the time that velocity at [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) could be maintained (Tmax). In S-P, intervals were prescribed as 7 × 120 s at the mean velocity of rating of perceived exertion 20 (vRPE20). Both groups used 1:2 work:recovery ratio. Maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text], Tmax, vRPE20, critical speed (CS), and lactate threshold (LT) were determined before and after the 6-week training. STND and S-P training significantly improved [Formula: see text] by 4 ± 8 and 6 ± 6%, CS by 7 ± 7 and 3 ± 3%; LT by 5 ± 4% and 7 ± 8%, respectively (all P < .05), with no differences observed between groups. Novel metrics obtained from the SPV can offer similar training prescription and improvement in [Formula: see text], CS and LT compared to training derived from a traditional GXT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
| Brazil | 2 | 13% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 63% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 22 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 33 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,395,742
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,020
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,130
of 454,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#25
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.