Yo-Yo IR1 vs. incremental continuous running test for prediction of 3000-m performance.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare physiological responses during the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) Test and an incremental continuous running field Test (ICRT) and to analyze their predictive value on 3000-m running performance.

METHODS

Forty moderately trained individuals (18 females) performed the ICRT and Yo-Yo IR1 Test to exhaustion. The ICRT was performed as graded running test with an increase of 2.0 km·h-1 after each 3 min interval for lactate diagnostic. In both tests, blood lactate levels were determined after the test and at 2 and 5 min of recovery. Heart rate (HR) was recorded to monitor differences in HR slopes and HR recovery.

RESULTS

Comparison revealed a correlation between ICRT and Yo-Yo IR1 Test performance (R2=0.83, P<0.001), while significant differences in HRmax existed (Yo-Yo IR1, 189±10 bpm; ICRT, 195±16 bpm; P<0.005; ES=0.5). Maximum lactate levels were also different between test (Yo-Yo IR1, 10.1±2.1 mmol∙L-1; ICRT, 11.7±2.4 mmol∙L-1; P<0.01; ES=0.7). Significant inverse correlations were found between the Yo-Yo IR1 Test performance and 3000 m running time (R2=0.77, P<0.0001) as well as the ICRT and 3000 m time (R2=0.90, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that ICRT and Yo-Yo IR1 test are useful field test methods for the prediction of competitive running performances such as 3000-m runs but maximum HR and blood lactate values differ significantly. The ICRT may have higher predictive power for middle- to long- distance running performance such as 3000-m runs offering a reliable test for coaches in the recruitment of athletes or supervision of training concepts.