Table 3.
Testing protocol characteristics and modelling methods of studies investigating critical speed (CS) and D′ measurement
| Study | Alternate test protocol | Fixed effort distance | Fixed effort duration | Fixed effort intensity | linear (distance time) | linear (inverse time) | 2-parameter hyperbolic | 3-parameter hyperbolic | Exponential | Stryd | Measurement or modelling assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antonio et al. [93] | T10 | 2 trials; 1200, 2400 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of multi-trial testing vs. T10 on CS value |
| Barbosa et al. [120] | T10 | 3 trials; 1200, 2400, 3600 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of multi-trial testing vs. T10 on CS value. Reliability assessment |
| Bull et al. [90] | – | – | – | 4–5 trials; lasting ~ 3–20 min | x | x | x | x | x | – | Comparison of models on CS value |
| de Borba et al. [94] | T10 | 3 trials; 1200, 2400, 3600 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of multi-trial testing vs. T10 on CS value |
| Dearing and Paton [91] | – | – | 4 trials; 3, 5, 10, 20 min | – | – | x | – | – | – | x | Comparison of models on CS value |
| Follador et al. [96] | T10 | 3 trials; 1200, 2400, 3600 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of multi-trial testing vs. T10 on CS value. Reliability assessment |
| Figueiredo et al. [95] | – | 3 trials; 1000, 1800, 2600 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of number and length of trials used on CS value |
| Gorostiaga et al. [97] | – | 1000, 1500, 3000, 5000, 10,000 m, half marathon, and marathona | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of number and length of trials used on CS value |
| Jaén-Carrillo et al. [121] | – | – | 2 trials; 3 and 9 min | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | Comparison of task surface (track vs. trail) on CS estimation |
| Kirby et al. [98] | CVST | 3 trials; 1200, 2400, 5000 m | – | – | x | – | – | – | – | – | Comparison of multi-trial testing vs. CVST on CS value. Reliability assessment |
| Kranenburg and Smith [99] | – | 3 trials; 907, 2268, 4082 m | – | 3 trials; ~ 3, 7, 13 min | x | x | – | – | – | – | Comparison of testing methods on CS (track TT vs. treadmill TTE) |
| Lord et al. [100] | – |
Shuttle running test; 100, 400, 1500 m 3 trials; 1200, 2400, 3600 m |
1, 5, 10, 60, 300 s | – | x | x | – | – | – | – | Comparison multi-trial testing vs. gameplay data on CS value. Reliability assessment |
| Ñancupil-Andrade et al. [101] | – | – | 10 trials; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 60 min | – | – | – | – | – | – | x | Comparison of methods on CS value (TTs vs. 95% 20 min TT) |
| Olaya–Cuartero et al. [102] | – | Half marathona | 3, 9 min | – | – | – | – | – | – | x | Comparison of methods on CS value (TTs vs. half marathon power) |
| Patoz et al. [19] | – | – | – | 90, 100, 110, 120% peak speed | – | – | – | x | – | – | Comparison of different CP values and CS |
| Gamelin et al. [43] | – | – | 6, 9, 12 min | – | x | x | x | x | x | – | Comparison of models on CS value |
| Simões et al. [92] | – | 2 trials; 500, 3000 m | – | Heart rate deflection point velocity | x | x | – | – | – | – | Comparison of 2 vs. 3 trials and model on CS value |
| van Rassel et al. [18] | – | 3 trials; 1200, 2400, and 3600, 4000 or 4400 m | – | – | – | – | x | – | – | – | Comparison of CP and CS and 2 vs. 3 trials on CS value |
COD change of direction, CP critical power, CS critical speed, TT time trial, TTE time to exhaustion, – no data to report, x the model used
aRace data used