Skip Navigation LinksHome > May 2009 - Volume 41 - Issue 5 > Familiarization, Reliability, And Evaluation Of A Multiple S...
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000355338.14943.70
D-28 Free Communication/Poster - Fitness Testing: MAY 28, 2009 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM ROOM: Hall 4F

Familiarization, Reliability, And Evaluation Of A Multiple Sprint Running Test Using Self-selected Recovery Periods: 2173: Board #61 May 28 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM

Glaister, Mark1; Witmer, Chad2; Clarke, Dustin W.2; Guers, John J.2; Heller, Justin L.2; Moir, Gavin2

Free Access
Collapse Box

Author Information

1St Mary's University College, Twickenham, United Kingdom. 2East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA.

(Sponsor: Dr Gregory B Dwyer, FACSM)

Email: Glaistem@smuc.ac.uk

(No relationships reported)

PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were to investigate the process of self-selected recovery in a multiple sprint test with a view to using self-selected recovery time as a means of reliably quantifying an individual's ability to perform this type of exercise.

METHODS: Twenty physically active exercise science students (Means ± standard deviation for age, height, body mass, body fat, and VO2max of the subjects were: 21 ± 2 years, 179.2 ± 8.6 cm, 83.7 ± 10.8 kg, 16.6 ± 3.9%, and 52.7± 7.2 ml·kg-1·min-1 respectively) completed four trials of a 12 × 30 m multiple sprint running test under the instruction that they should allow sufficient recovery time between sprints to enable maximal sprint performance to be maintained throughout each trial. Heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded throughout each trial, with sprint and recovery times recorded using twin-beam photocells.

RESULTS: Mean recovery times across the four trials were 73.9 ± 24.7 s, 82.3 ± 23.8 s, 77.6 ± 19.1 s, and 77.5 ± 13.9 s respectively; with variability in the first two trials considered evidence of learning effects. Test-retest reliability across trials 3-4 revealed a good level of reliability as evidenced by a coefficient of variation of 11.1% (95% likely range: 8.0 to 18.1%) and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% likely range: 0.40 to 0.91). Despite no change in sprint performance throughout the trials, RPE increased progressively and significantly (p < 0.001) from a value of 10 ± 2 after sprint 3 to 14 ± 2 after sprint 12. Mean heart rate throughout trial 4 was 152 ± 18 b·min-1. The correlation between absolute VO2max and mean recovery time was 0.46 (95% likely range: -0.03 to 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS: Although self-selected recovery time is a reliable measure in a multiple sprint test, it only appears to be moderately associated with an individual's VO2max.

©2009The American College of Sports Medicine

Login

Article Tools

Share

Connect With Us