Relationship of critical speed derived from a 10-min submaximal treadmill test to 5-km and 10-km running performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that the critical speed (CS) predicted from a perceptually self-regulated 10-min submaximal treadmill test (T10) is reliable and closely matches the CS estimated from conventional methods. To assess the relationship between the T10 and 5-km and 10-km running performances, 36 recreational runners (mean SD: age: 32.2 ± 6.2 years, height: 173.2 ± 7.3 cm, weight: 70.9 ± 8.8 kg, maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max): 53.3 ± 6.1 mL·kg−1·min−1) performed a ramp incremental test and 2 T10 tests (the first as a familiarization trial). Results showed that the T10 CS (3.9 ± 0.44 m·s−1) was significantly correlated with runners’ last 6 months best performances in 5 km (20.3 ± 2.7 min; r = –0.90) and 10 km (42.7 ± 5.7 min; r = –0.91), the V̇O2max (r = 0.75), the speed associated with the gas exchange threshold (vGET: 3.38 ± 0.36 m·s−1; r = 0.76), the speed associated with the second ventilatory threshold (vVT2: 4.15 ± 0.49 m·s−1; r = 0.84), and the speed associated with the V̇O2max (vV̇O2max: 4.78 ± 0.54 m·s−1; r = 0.87). Moreover, 79% and 83% of the variance in 5-km and 10-km performances could be explained solely by the CS predicted from the T10. Results evidenced the strong relationship and practical performance relevance of the T10 CS test. Novelty: Critical speed derived from a 10-min submaximal treadmill test (T10) is significantly correlated with 5-km and 10-km running performances. The T10 critical speed test may represent a useful tool for assessing running performance capabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".