See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358007363

Middle- and long-distance running

Chapter · January 2022

DOI: 10.4324/9781003045281-27

CITATIONS READS

2 3,027

2 authors, including:

Brian Hanley
Leeds Beckett University
150 PUBLICATIONS 1,417 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Hanley on 03 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sport and Exercise Physiology Testing Guidelines:
Volume I – Sport Testing
The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences Guide

Edited By

R. C. Richard Davison, Paul M. Smith, James Hopker, Michael J. Price,

Florentina Hettinga, Garry Tew, Lindsay Bottoms

ISBN 9781003045281

Published in March 2022 by Routledge

Sport and Exercise Physiology Testing Guidelines: Volume I – Sport Tes (taylorfrancis.com)
Chapter 4.1
Middle- and long-distance running
Brian Hanley & Andy Shaw

The middle- and long-distance running events comprise the 800m, 1500m, 3000m
steeplechase, 5000m, 10,000m and marathon. Although these events are described as race
distances, it is useful for the physiologist to consider running duration, which will differ
between athletes dependent on ability, age, and sex (March et al., 2011), highlighted in Figure
1. For both middle- and long-distance running the aerobic system is the predominant
contributor to energy turnover, with the proportion of energy from anaerobic sources
decreasing as distance run increases (Spencer and Gastin, 2001). However, the absolute
contribution of anaerobic energy might not differ greatly in well-trained athletes, especially
over the shorter distances (Gastin, 2001).

Men 800m
1500m

10,000m / 5000m
Marathon

Women 800m
1500m

10,000m / 5,000m

Marathon

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-1
Running speed (km·h )

Figure 1 – The range of running speeds found in men’s and women’s middle- and long-distance championship
racing (based on data from Hettinga et al., 2019).

Physiological testing is used to measure and monitor an athlete’s adaptation to training across
a season/their career, notwithstanding that the best test of progression is still performance in
their event itself. However, the tactical nature of racing means that there is often a disconnect
between an athlete’s physiological capacity and their race performances; indeed, athletes do
not need to even run their season’s best time to win at major championships (Hanley and
Hettinga, 2018). Further, as a given athlete is not always able to control the pace of a race, it is
important they develop a range of physical qualities to maximise their competitive advantage
in any given situation. It is clear athletes do not prepare for competition by repeatedly running
the race distance; instead, training focuses on adapting to different demands of the event,
including aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Therefore, any physiological testing should take
into consideration the measurement of the important contributors to fast running within the
context of the race demands.
The following tests can be used to profile different physiological metrics across a distance
runner’s profile, shown in Figure 2, with normative data provided to facilitate the interpretation
of results in Table 1. These include physiological assessments made in a laboratory, and field-
based assessments of performance metrics that can be used effectively when laboratory access
is limited. For inexperienced athletes, general benchmarking of all factors can be effective in
identifying the potential strengths and opportunities, that can in turn inform training. For more
experienced or elite athletes with a greater history of testing, the testing battery should be
refined with appropriate metrics assessed to inform key performance questions in different
phases of the season.

Laboratory assessments
Laboratory assessments are used to profile the aerobic physiology of a runner. A two-phase
test has been formulated to assess the primary physiological determinants of endurance
running, namely lactate thresholds, running economy (RE) and maximal oxygen uptake
(V̇O2max), in one visit and with only one phase of maximal running (Jones, 2007). Separately,
an assessment of V̇O2 on-kinetics can also be conducted.

Phase one– submaximal aerobic assessment

After a 10-min warm up (1 km∙h-1 lower than starting speed), a multi-stage discontinuous
incremental test on a treadmill is completed, with 3-min stages of running interspersed by 30-
s rest to obtain blood measures. For trained runners, stages are set to 3 min to obtain a steady
state response in the moderate and heavy exercise domains (Shaw et al., 2013), with increments
moving from moderate to heavy and into severe exercise within 6-9 stages (typically 0.5-1
km∙h-1 dependent on existing knowledge of the athlete’s thresholds and the sensitivity
required). The treadmill gradient is set to 1% to replicate the metabolic cost of outdoor running
(Jones and Doust, 1996), although practitioners who are concurrently taking biomechanical
measures should note the potential effect on gait parameters. The starting speed is set so that
the athlete could maintain that pace for >3 h and comfortably hold a conversation, derived by
exploring the typical paces used by the athlete in training. Heart rate and pulmonary gas
exchange is monitored throughout the assessment, with blood [lactate] (via capillary earlobe
samples) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) assessed during rest intervals. Tests should be
terminated the stage before the athlete would reach exhaustion, with blood [lactate] typically
>5 mM and heart rates within 10 b∙min-1 of maximum. This phase of the test can be repeated
every 10-12 weeks throughout the season to monitor progression and inform appropriate
training paces (Figure 2) and is used to calculate the following variables.

Blood lactate thresholds and the fractional utilisation of V̇O2max

Lactate threshold is identified as the sustained increase in blood [lactate] above baseline values.
As outlined in previous chapters, this metric represents the boundary between the moderate
and heavy domain (Figure 2). The lactate turnpoint (LTP) is the second lactate threshold,
defined as a distinct ‘sudden and sustained’ breakpoint in blood [lactate], and is typically
identified as a change in blood [lactate] >1 mmol∙L-1 between stages (Figure 2). The LTP
occurs below the heavy-severe boundary, representing an intensity that can be sustained for
~60 min. Consequently, LTP is used to define the transition between steady and tempo running
in distance runners, an important element of world-class athletes’ training (Casado, Hanley and
Ruiz-Pérez, 2020).

Although both LT and LTP are commonly expressed as a speed threshold (km∙h-1), it is
important to note this expression is a composite of the lactate thresholds and RE. The V̇O2 at
LT and LTP can also be expressed relative to V̇O2max, providing the fractional utilisation of
V̇O2max and therefore a measure of sustainable energetic rate rather than running speed. As
changes in the V̇O2max of an experienced athlete can be small (Jones, 2006), the ability to use
as much of the aerobic capacity as possible at either the LT (marathons) or LTP (half marathons
or 10,000m) is an important target, especially for long-distance runners.

Running economy
RE is commonly expressed as the oxygen cost of running, combining the energetic cost of
running and the substrate utilisation of an athlete into one variable, calculated as the average
V̇O2 over the four stages below LTP, and expressed as mL∙kg-1∙km-1 to enable inter- and intra-
individual comparisons (Shaw, Ingham and Folland, 2014). As the expression is a cost, a lower
value is better for RE (Table 1). To facilitate interpretation of RE, the underlying energetic cost
should still be calculated to assess changes that are independent of substrate utilisation, using
the following equations combining updated non-protein respiratory quotient equations
(Péronnet and Massicotte, 1991) and the energy equivalents for the substrates metabolised at
moderate-high intensities (Jeukendrup and Wallis, 2005):
Total energy cost (Kcal∙min-1)=
(((1.695×V̇O2)–(1.701×V̇CO2))×9.75)+(((4.585×V̇CO2)–(3.226×V̇O2) ×4.07)
Relative energy cost (Kcal∙kg-1∙km-1)=(Total energy cost/BM)/(Speed km∙h-1/60)

Although RE has been shown to be a key determinant in both long- and middle-distance
athletes, it should be noted that the measurement of RE from pulmonary gas exchange limits
its assessment to submaximal intensities and therefore is more relevant for performance in
long-distance running. As RE is known to change with running speed (Shaw, Ingham and
Folland, 2014), extrapolations to the maximal/supra-maximal intensities of middle-distance
events should be made with caution.

Phase two – maximal aerobic assessment

The second phase of the treadmill testing is a maximal aerobic assessment. After ~15 min of
rest/active recovery after the submaximal assessment, the athlete completes a continuous ramp
test. The submaximal assessment can be used to infer an appropriate starting speed, typically
set 2 km∙h-1 lower than the final increment in phase one. After 1 min to allow the athlete to
settle into the pace, speed is increased by 0∙5 km.h-1 until volitional exhaustion, demonstrated
by the athlete being unable to maintain their position at the front of the treadmill despite
encouragement, or the athlete placing their hands on the rail and straddling the belt. Heart rate
and pulmonary gas exchange are monitored throughout, with blood [lactate] assessed on
completion of the test and repeated every minute until blood [lactate] begins to fall to obtain
peak blood [lactate]. This phase is used to calculate the metrics below.

V̇O2max
V̇O2max remains a key a key physiological determinant for both middle- and long-distance
runners. An athlete’s V̇O2max can be combined with RE to calculate the velocity at vV̇O2max,
typically calculated by the following equation:
vV̇O2max = (V̇O2max×60)/RE
Where vV̇O2max is in km∙h-1, V̇O2max in mL∙kg-1∙min-1 and RE in mL∙kg-1∙km-1.

Although vV̇O2max calculated from V̇O2max and RE has shown strong associations with
endurance running performance, its use to demarcate the upper boundary of the severe domain
is less established and appears to underestimate this threshold (Figure 2), especially in well-
trained athletes with fast V̇O2 on-response times.

Table 1 – Typical values for Running economy (RE) in oxygen cost, Lactate threshold (LT) lactate turnpoint
(LTP), maximal oxygen update (V̇O2max) and maximal sprint speed (MSS) in endurance runners based on testing
of UK athletes.

Females Males
RE LT LTP V̇O2max MSS RE LT LTP V̇O2max MSS
World Class <185 >18 >20 >70 >9.0 <185 >19 >22 >80 >10
Good 185-204 17-18 18-20 60-69 8.2-9.0 185-204 18-19 20-22 70-79 9.2-10
Moderate 205-220 15-17 17-18 50-59 7.5-8.1 205-220 16-18 18-20 60-69 8.5-9.1
Low >220 <15 <17 <50 <7.5 >220 <16 <18 <60 <8.5

Application to training
The results from both phases of the test can be used to inform appropriate training zones, shown
in figure 2 (Jones 2007). In addition, results from phase 1 can be used to calculate equivalent
heart rate zones for easy, steady and tempo running. As heart rate provides an index of internal
load, these zones can be effective for guiding training intensity on different terrains (off road,
hills etc) or in extreme environments (heat or altitude), accounting for the additional load an
athlete might experience for a given running speed.
V̇O2 on-kinetic assessment
On a separate laboratory visit, the following protocol can be used to assesses the V̇O2 on-
kinetics in both the moderate and severe exercise domains, based on procedures outlined by
Carter et al. (2002). Upon arrival, a light warm up can be conducted, but kept at a speed <80%
of LT. Athletes then straddle the treadmill belt, with baseline V̇O2 data captured for 2 min. In
this time, the belt is set to an appropriate speed, initially 90% LT. At 2 min, the athlete is
instructed to drop onto the treadmill belt and begin running for 6 min, with the precise time
matched with the V̇O2 data collection to identify this transition in the analysis. This bout
provides assessment of V̇O2 phase II responses in the moderate domain with no priming effect
on the following bout. Athletes then rest for 10 min, before returning to the treadmill and
repeating the above procedure with the treadmill speed set to 80% of the difference (Δ) between
LT and vV̇O2max to assess the V̇O2 phase II responses, in addition to the V̇O2 slow component,
in the severe domain. It is this section that is of greatest relevance to middle and middle/long
distances, given these events occur in the severe domain. Data can then be modelled using non-
linear regression techniques, as outlined in previous chapters.

This assessment can be used to monitor chronic adaptions, but also acute priming activities that
are used before competitive performances (i.e., warm-ups and nutritional priming). When
assessing warm-ups for events that are performed at intensities >CS, the initial moderate
domain bout should be replaced with the event priming routine, with appropriate focus on the
timing of the priming routine relative to the exercise bout that mimics the competition timeline.

Field-based performance testing

Critical speed (CS) and D’
As discussed in detail in previous chapters, maximal running trials can be used to calculate the
boundary between the heavy and severe domains, CS, and the ability to operate above this
boundary, D’ (Hughson, Orok and Staudt, 1984). Efforts are typically performed as time to
complete a set distance, given an athlete’s familiarity with such efforts from racing. The model
requires at least three different race times with the longest and shortest differing in duration by
~10 min (1500m, 3000m and 5km from races; or 1200m, 2400m and 4000m for prescribed
training efforts). As this requires only a stopwatch and a track to complete, this can be an
effective monitoring tool for those without laboratory access.

For a valid assessment of CS and D’, performance trials must be truly maximal. Races should
be included only where the goal is the shortest duration for the given distance, rather than
tactical races that prioritise finishing position. Though attempts have been made to combine
multiple trials into one visit to enable efficient assessment of CS and D’, it has been shown that
athletes do not achieve truly maximal performances when compared with exhaustive trials on
separate days, leading to inaccurate D’ values that do not reflect an athlete’s true capacity
(Galbraith et al., 2014). Finally, given that the athlete’s physiology needs to be uniform through
all assessments to calculate a true CS and D’, efforts conducted >4 weeks apart should not be
combined into the same model, especially where training focus and targeted race distances
have changed.

Maximal sprint speed (MSS)

Maximal sprint speed (MSS) can be assessed on a 50m straight on a running track. After a
thorough warm-up and strides, athletes maximally accelerate through the first 20m and aim to
at least achieve and maintain their maximum speed for the following 30m. Laser radars enable
assessment of velocity throughout, where MSS is defined as the maximum velocity from the
radar trace. Timing gates can be used where radar is not accessible, spaced at 10m intervals
from 20m onwards, with the maximum velocity over 10m as an index of MSS. The MSS can
also be used in conjunction with vV̇O2max to calculate the anaerobic speed reserve (ASR),
defined as the difference between these values (Blondel et al., 2001).

Assessed RE LT LTP vV̇O2max MSS

CS ASR
measurement
metrics

Common Easy… Steady Tempo Aerobic Supra-maximal Sprint intervals

intervals intervals
training zones

Intensity Moderate Heavy Severe ……. Extreme

domains

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31
-1
Running speed (km·h )

Figure 2 – A schematic example of a 1500m athlete’s full physiological profile based on the testing outlined in
this chapter, their relation to exercise intensity domains and commonly prescribed training zones for distance
runners (Jones, 2007).

Multi-disciplinary considerations
It is important to note that if a practitioner is assessing gait spatiotemporal parameters,
biomechanical differences between outdoor and treadmill running can occur. Because the exact
differences found could be exclusive to a particular model of treadmill (Sinclair et al., 2013),
laboratory testing should be conducted on robust, unyielding treadmills where possible.
Further, as an athlete’s biomechanics can affect factors such as RE (Dutto and Smith, 2002), a
pre-testing period of 8 min or more of treadmill running, which can function as a warm-up, is
needed for familiarisation (Arnold, Weeks and Horan, 2019).

In terms of psychological effects, social interaction has a strong effect on performance both in
competition and within the laboratory; Halperin, Pyne and Martin (2015) highlighted the
importance of controlling for threats to internal validity during testing, which include the
number of testers, use of music, and volume and frequency of verbal encouragement. For
example, the use of RPE is useful when conducting laboratory-based tests but, as a subjective
measure, can be influenced by social interaction as in competition.
Competition considerations
When interpreting the results of physiological testing, it is beneficial to consider the different
demands of competition, such as pacing across a championship (heats, semi-finals and finals,
or multiple races), as a general strategy (e.g., negative splits in marathon) and in terms of often
subtle increases and decreases in pace. For example, elite 800m runners typically cover the
first 200m in a speed much faster than world record pace (Hettinga, Edwards and Hanley,
2019), which might accelerate V̇O2 uptake kinetics and increase the aerobic contribution to
energy expenditure and sparing anaerobic capacity (Jones and Burnley, 2009). Using a
treadmill makes testing easier but does not account for the changes in speed and energy cost
that occur because of bend running, hills and different surfaces (Jensen, Johansen and
Kärkkäinen, 1999; Mercier, Aftalion and Hanley, 2021; Minetti, Ardigò and Saibene, 1994).
Indeed, although it is important that laboratory-based testing of distance runners is conducted
in an internally valid and reliable manner, competitions rarely take place in such controlled
conditions. Environmental chambers that allow for control of temperature, humidity or
simulated altitude can assist the physiologist to test adaptations in conditions likely to occur in
competition. Of course, not all external factors can be controlled (e.g., solar radiation and
rainfall), but should nonetheless be considered when evaluating performance relative to testing
results.

REFERENCES
Arnold, B. J., Weeks, B. K. and Horan, S. A. (2019). An examination of treadmill running
familiarisation in barefoot and shod conditions in healthy men. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 37(1), pp. 5-12.
Blondel, N., Berthoin, S., Billat, V. and Lensel, G. (2001). Relationship between run times to
exhaustion at 90, 100, 120, and 140% of vVO2max and velocity expressed relatively to critical
velocity and maximal velocity. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 22(1), pp. 27-33.
Carter, H., Pringle, J. S., Jones, A. M. and Doust, J. H. (2002). Oxygen uptake kinetics during
treadmill running across exercise intensity domains. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 86(4), pp. 347-354.
Casado, A., Hanley, B. and Ruiz-Pérez, L. M. (2020). Deliberate practice in training
differentiates the best Kenyan and Spanish long-distance runners. European Journal of Sport
Science, 20(7), pp. 887-895.
Dutto, D. J. and Smith, G. A. (2002). Changes in spring-mass characteristics during treadmill
running to exhaustion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(8), pp. 1324-1331.
Galbraith, A., Hopker, J., Lelliott, S., Diddams, L. and Passfield, L. (2014). A single-visit field
test of critical speed. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(6), pp.
931-935.
Gastin, P. B. (2001). Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal
exercise. Sports Medicine, 31(10), pp. 725-741.
Halperin, I., Pyne, D. B. and Martin, D. T. (2015). Threats to internal validity in exercise
science: A review of overlooked confounding variables. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 10(7), pp. 823-829.
Hanley, B. and Hettinga, F. J. (2018). Champions are racers, not pacers: An analysis of
qualification patterns of Olympic and IAAF World Championship middle distance
runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(22), pp. 2614-2620.
Hettinga, F. J., Edwards, A. M. and Hanley, B. (2019). The science behind competition and
winning in athletics: Using world-level competition data to explore pacing and
tactics. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 1, p. 11.
Hughson, R. L., Orok, C. J. and Staudt, L. E. (1984). A high velocity treadmill running test to
assess endurance running potential. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 5(1), pp. 23-25.
Jensen, K., Johansen, L. and Kärkkäinen, O. P. (1999). Economy in track runners and orienteers
during path and terrain running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(12), pp. 945-950.
Jeukendrup, A. E. and Wallis, G. A. (2005). Measurement of substrate oxidation during
exercise by means of gas exchange measurements. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 26(S1), pp. S28-S37.
Jones, A. M. (2006). The physiology of the world record holder for the women's
marathon. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(2), pp. 101-116.
Jones, A. M. (2007). Middle- and long-distance running. In: E. M. Winter, A. M. Jones, R. C.
Richard Davison, P. D. Bromley, and T. H. Mercer, eds., Sport and Exercise Physiology
Testing Guidelines: The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences Guide Volume I:
Sport Testing, 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 147-154.
Jones, A. M. and Burnley, M. (2009). Oxygen uptake kinetics: An underappreciated
determinant of exercise performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 4(4), pp. 524-532.
Jones, A. M. and Doust, J. H. (1996). A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the
energetic cost of outdoor running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14(4), pp. 321-327.
March, D. S., Vanderburgh, P. M., Titlebaum, P. J. and Hoops, M. L. (2011). Age, sex, and
finish time as determinants of pacing in the marathon. The Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 25(2), pp. 386-391.
Mercier, Q., Aftalion, A. and Hanley, B. (2020). A model for world-class 10,000 m running
performances: Strategy and optimization. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2, p. 226.
Minetti, A. E., Ardigò, L. P. and Saibene, F. (1994). Mechanical determinants of the minimum
energy cost of gradient running in humans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 195(1), pp. 211-
225.
Péronnet, F. and Massicotte, D. (1991). Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: An
update. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 16(1), pp. 23-29.
 Sinclair, J., Richards, J. I. M., Taylor, P. J., Edmundson, C. J., Brooks, D. and Hobbs, S. J.
(2013). Three-dimensional kinematic comparison of treadmill and overground running. Sports
Biomechanics, 12(3), pp. 272-282.
Shaw, A. J., Ingham, S. A. and Folland, J. P. (2014). The valid measurement of running
economy in runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(10), pp. 1968-1973.
Shaw, A. J., Ingham, S. A., Fudge, B. W. and Folland, J. P. (2013). The reliability of running
economy expressed as oxygen cost and energy cost in trained distance runners. Applied
Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 38(12), pp. 1268–72.
Spencer, M. R. and Gastin, P. B. (2001). Energy system contribution during 200- to 1500-m
running in highly trained athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(1), pp. 157-
162.

View publication stats