The purpose of the present study was to compare the critical speed with the speed at MLSS determined during continuous and intermittent running. The results of this investigation showed significant associations and similarities between CS and vMLSSint (15.2 ± 1.0 and 15.3 ± 0.7 km·h-1, respectively) indicating the possibility of using this index to predict the vMLSSint, whilst the vMLSScon (14.4 ± 0.6 km·h-1) was significantly lower than both other indices. Further, the Bland Altman plot showed good agreement between CS and vMLSSint, thus justifying the use of CS as an important index to control IT. However, even considering the small bias between these indices, the confidence interval (95%) reveals a possible prediction error of 1 km·h-1, or approximately 6%. Nevertheless, the results show that the intermittent MLSS is similar to CS. Previous results available in the literature demonstrate that CS is not the intensity that can be maintained for a long period of time without fatigue, as proposed by pioneering studies (Monod and Scherer, 1965; Moritani et al., 1981). Wakayoshi et al., 1993 were the first authors to compare the intensities of MLSS and swimming CS. Although the authors concluded that CS may correspond to the exercise intensity at MLSS, the protocol used during the research had short pauses between the 400 m repetitions for blood sampling. These brief rest periods seemed to increase the blood lactate removal via oxidation (Brooks, 2002), consequently leading to a higher intensities corresponding to MLSS (Beneke et al., 2003). Subsequent studies showed an overestimation of CS, when compared to OBLA or vMLSScon intensity during swimming (Greco et al., 2010; Dekerle et al., 2010), cycling (De Lucas et al., 2002; Brickley et al., 2002), and running (Smith and Jones, 2001; Denadai et al., 2005). Supporting these findings, results from studies performed in swimming and cycling have shown that in exercises performed at CS the time to exhaustion ranges between 20 and 40 min. Brickley et al., 2002 found a mean time to exhaustion of 29.3 ± 8.2 min and a final [La] of 7.3 ± 1.6 mmol·L-1, whilst the end-VO2 corresponded to 91% of the VO2max. Observing this together with others studies (Jenkins and Quigley, 1990; De Lucas et al., 2002) it seems that the CS is situated at an intensity slightly above the continuous MLSS. In addition, the difference between the vMLSS determined in both modes, was 6% and represented a large effect size (ES) (Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, the vMLSScon was situated at ~ 82,2% of maximal aerobic speed (i.e. vVO2max) assessed during treadmill incremental test, whilst the vMLSSint was ~ 87,4% of vVO2max. Some years ago, Beneke et al., 2003 demonstrated in cycling that the work rates corresponding to the MLSS determined during an intermittent protocol with passive recovery (30 or 90 s rest every five minutes of exercise) were about 8-10% higher (300 and 310 W, respectively) than that determined in a 30 min continuous protocol (277 W). Taking this perspective, Dekerle et al., 2010 conducted an interesting study with 6 swimmers and found [La] stability over 50 min during IT sets (10 x 400 m) at the CS intensity. In contrast when the athletes swam at this intensity continuously, the [La] stability was not maintained and a time to exhaustion less than 30 min was recorded, suggesting that CS is at an intensity corresponding to the intermittent lactate steady state. Thus, confirming these results, the present study found that the running CS corresponded to the vMLSSint (15.2 ± 1.0 and 15.3 ± 0.7 km·h-1, respectively). Additionally, a significantly correlation was found between these indices (r = 0.84, p < 0.05) and also a good agreement between them (Figure 1). Previous studies have found that MLSSint is an intensity about 3% to 4% higher than the MLSScon in swimming (Dekerle et al., 2010; Greco et al., 2010), 6% to 10% in cycling (Beneke et al., 2003) and, according to present findings, approximately 6% in running. It is important to emphasize that these differences are likely associated to the exercise mode and to the different work:rest ratio, as well as the durations of exercise intervals, used in previous studies. The determination of vMLSS can be quite important for the prescription of training for endurance athletes (Philp et al., 2008). However, although the vMLSS is the “gold standard” method to determine aerobic capacity, its methodology is not suitable for routine diagnostic use because of its time-consuming nature (several days to complete the series of prolonged bouts) and because of the requirement for numerous blood samples (Dekerle et al., 2003; Dekerle et al., 2005). Thus, for practical reasons (low cost and non-invasive) CS is an interesting and alternative method to prescribe IT at maximal lactate steady state intensity. Few studies have discussed the practical application of CS to prescribe both continuous and interval training. Considering the literature, the mean value of time to exhaustion at CS is between 15 and 30 min (Brickley et al., 2002; Bull et al., 2008; De Lucas et al., 2002), and the IT session at CS intensity, could be planned based on total volume close to 30 min, i.e. 6 x 5 min or 10 x 3 min. The work:rest ratio could be about 5:1 to 2:1, depending on the approach. The present study used a model of 5:1 and so the present findings should be restricted to that general characteristic. The choice of characteristics of intermittent exercise used during the present investigation, was supported by traditional long interval sessions commonly used by endurance runners, as repetitions of 1000-1600 m (i.e. around 5 min), depending on the performance level (Billat, 2001). Dekerle et al., 2010, used a model of exercising at CS during swimming, based on distance intervals (i.e. 10 x 400 m with rest of 50 s). The models of both studies could be considered similar, since swimmers from the Dekerle et al., 2010 study, performed intervals somewhat close to 5 min and the rest period was close to 1 min. Hence, we consider the practical application of CS for sport coaches, an important issue to discuss, focusing the topic between athletes and coaches. |