Assessing anaerobic speed reserve: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of methods to determine maximal aerobic speed and maximal sprinting speed in running-based sports

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 19; no. 1; p. e0296866
• Main Authors: Thron, Maximiliane, Düking, Peter, Ruf, Ludwig, Härtel, Sascha, Woll, Alexander, Altmann, Stefan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 22-01-2024; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Anaerobiosis; Analysis; Athletes; Biology and Life Sciences; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Criteria; Endurance; Engineering and Technology; Exercise; Field study; Field tests; Fitness equipment; Humans; Keywords; Laser measurements; Lasers; Measurement; Medicine and Health Sciences; Online databases; Physical fitness; Physical Sciences; Physiological effects; Radar; Radar systems; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Research and Analysis Methods; Running; Social Sciences; Speed; Systematic review; Team sports; Time measurement; Track & field; Validity; Velocity; Germany
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296866

Locomotor profiling using anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) enables insights into athletes' physiological and neuromuscular contributing factors and prescription of high-intensity training beyond maximal aerobic speed (MAS). This systematic review aimed to determine the validity and reliability of different methods to assess the characteristics of ASR, i.e., MAS and maximal sprinting speed (MSS).
A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported data on validity and/or reliability for methods to assess MAS or MSS.
58 studies were included with 28 studies referring to MAS and 30 studies to MSS. Regarding MAS, different methods for cardiopulmonary exercise testing yielded different values (four out of seven studies) of MAS (Cohen's d (ES) = 0.83-2.8; Pearson's r/intraclass correlation coefficient (r/ICC) = 0.46-0.85). Criterion validity of different field tests showed heterogeneous results (ES = 0-3.57; r/ICC = 0.40-0.96). Intraday and interday reliability was mostly acceptable for the investigated methods (ICC/r>0.76; CV<16.9%). Regarding MSS, radar and laser measurements (one out of one studies), timing gates (two out of two studies), and video analysis showed mostly good criterion validity (two out of two studies) (ES = 0.02-0.53; r/ICC = 0.93-0.98) and reliability (r/ICC>0.83; CV<2.43%). Criterion validity (ES = 0.02-7.11) and reliability (r/ICC = 0.14-0.97; CV = 0.7-9.77%) for global or local positioning systems (seven out of nine studies) and treadmill sprinting (one out of one studies) was not acceptable in most studies.
The criterion validity of incremental field tests or shuttle runs to examine MAS cannot be confirmed. Results on time trials indicate that distances adapted to the participants' sporting background, fitness, or sex might be suitable to estimate MAS. Regarding MSS, only sprints with radar or laser measures, timing gates, or video analysis provide valid and reliable results for linear sprints of 20 to 70 m.