SPENCER, M. R., and P. B. GASTIN. Energy system contribution during 200- to 1500-m running in highly trained athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 1, 2001, pp. 157–162. The purpose of the present study was to profile the aerobic and anaerobic energy system contribution during high-speed treadmill exercise that simulated 200-, 400-, 800-, and 1500-m track running events. Twenty highly trained athletes (Australian National Standard) participated in the study, specializing in either the 200-m (N = 3), 400-m (N = 6), 800-m (N = 5), or 1500-m (N = 6) event (mean O2 peak [mL·kg-1·min-1] ± SD = 56 ± 2, 59 ± 1, 67 ± 1, and 72 ± 2, respectively). The relative aerobic and anaerobic energy system contribution was calculated using the accumulated oxygen deficit (AOD) method. The relative contribution of the aerobic energy system to the 200-, 400-, 800-, and 1500-m events was 29 ± 4, 43 ± 1, 66 ± 2, and 84 ± 1% ± SD, respectively. The size of the AOD increased with event duration during the 200-, 400-, and 800-m events (30.4 ± 2.3, 41.3 ± 1.0, and 48.1 ± 4.5 mL·kg-1, respectively), but no further increase was seen in the 1500-m event (47.1 ± 3.8 mL·kg-1). The crossover to predominantly aerobic energy system supply occurred between 15 and 30 s for the 400-, 800-, and 1500-m events. These results suggest that the relative contribution of the aerobic energy system during track running events is considerable and greater than traditionally thought.

Perceptions of wellness are often used by athletes and coaches to assess adaptive responses to training. The purpose of this research was to describe how players were coping with the demands of elite level Australian football over a competitive season using subjective ratings of physical and psychological wellness and to assess the ecological validity of such a monitoring approach. Twenty-seven players completed ratings for 9 items (fatigue, general muscle, hamstring, quadriceps, pain/stiffness, power, sleep quality, stress, well-being). Players subjectively rated each item as they arrived at the training or competition venue on a 1-5 visual analog scale, with 1 representing the positive end of the continuum. A total of 2,583 questionnaires were analyzed from completions on 183 days throughout the season (92 ± 24 per player, 103 ± 20 per week; mean ± SD). Descriptive statistics and multilevel modelling were used to understand how player ratings of wellness varied over the season and during the week leading into game day and whether selected player characteristics moderated these relationships. Results indicated that subjective ratings of physical and psychological wellness were sensitive to weekly training manipulations (i.e., improve steadily throughout the week to a game day low, p < 0.001), to periods of unloading during the season (i.e., a week of no competition, p < 0.05) and to individual player characteristics (e.g., muscle strain after a game was poorer in players with high maximum speed, p < 0.01). It is concluded that self-reported player ratings of wellness provide a useful tool for coaches and practitioners to monitor player responses to the rigorous demands of training, competition, and life as a professional athlete.

Objective: Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods: Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results: Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions: COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).

This study assessed the validity of a tri-axial accelerometer worn on the upper body to estimate peak forces during running and change-of-direction tasks. Seventeen participants completed four different running and change-of-direction tasks (0°, 45°, 90°, and 180°; five trials per condition). Peak crania-caudal and resultant acceleration was converted to force and compared against peak force plate ground reaction force (GRF) in two formats (raw and smoothed). The resultant smoothed (10 Hz) and crania-caudal raw (except 180°) accelerometer values were not significantly different to resultant and vertical GRF for all running and change-of-direction tasks, respectively. Resultant accelerometer measures showed no to strong significant correlations (r = 0.00–0.76) and moderate to large measurement errors (coefficient of variation [CV] = 11.7–23.9%). Crania-caudal accelerometer measures showed small to moderate correlations (r = − 0.26 to 0.39) and moderate to large measurement errors (CV = 15.0–20.6%). Accelerometers, within integrated micro-technology tracking devices and worn on the upper body, can provide a relative measure of peak impact force experienced during running and two change-of-direction tasks (45° and 90°) provided that resultant smoothed values are used.