Different durations within the method of best practice affect the parameters of the speed-duration relationship

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine whether estimates of the speed-duration relationship are affected using different time-trial (TT) field-based testing protocols, where exhaustive times were located within the generally recommended durations of 2 to 15 min. Ten triathletes (mean±SD age: 31.0±5.7yrs; height: 1.81±0.05m; body mass: 76.5±6.8kg) performed two randomly assigned field-tests to determine critical speed (CS) and the total distance covered above CS (D´). CS and D´ were obtained using two different protocols comprising three TT that were interspersed by 60 min passive rest. The TTs were 12, 7, and 3 min in Protocol I and 10, 5, and 2 min in Protocol II. A linear relationship of speed vs. the inverse of time (s=D´x1/t+CS) was used to determine parameter estimates. Significant differences were found for CS (P=.026), but not for D´ (P=.123). The effect size for CS (d=.305) was considered small, whilst that for D´ was considered moderate (d=.742). CS was significantly correlated between protocols (r=.934; P<.001), however, no correlation was found for D´ (r=.053; P=.884). The 95% limits of agreement were ±0.28m∙s-1 and ±73.9m for CS and D´, respectively. These findings demonstrate that the choice of exhaustive times within commonly accepted durations, results in different estimates of CS and D´ and thus protocols cannot be used interchangeably. The use of a consistent protocol is therefore recommended, when investigating or monitoring the speed-duration relationship estimates in well-trained athletes