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

Abstract

Abstract Purpose.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). Several methods have been developed to assess characteristics of ASR, i.e., methods to assess MAS and maximal sprinting speed (MSS). This systematic review aimed to determine the validity and reliability of different methods to assess MAS and MSS in running-based sports. Methods. 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. Results. 58 studies were included with 28 studies referring to MAS and 30 studies to MSS. Regarding MAS, cardio-pulmonary exercise testing (CPET; n=19), time trials (n=20), incremental continuous field tests (n=12) and shuttle runs (n=10) were examined. Different methods for CPET 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 (against CPET) 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%). The studied methods to assess MSS included global or local positioning systems (GPS; LPS) (n=18), timing gates (n=8), radar/laser (n=3), treadmills (n=2), and video analysis (n=2). 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 GPS or LPS (seven out of nine studies) and treadmill sprinting (one out of one studies) was not acceptable in most studies. Conclusion. 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 50 m.