REF-889 · Blondel et al., 2001 · International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Relationship between run times to exhaustion at 90, 100, 120, and 140% of vVO2max and velocity expressed relatively to critical velocity and maximal velocity

Blimited evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Ten subjects ran to exhaustion at 90, 100, 120 and 140% of the velocity at VO2max (vVO2max). Times varied widely between runners at every intensity. Each speed was re-expressed relative to critical velocity (Cv), vVO2max and maximal running velocity (vmax).

Time to exhaustion at 90 and 100% was best explained by the speed's position between Cv and vmax (%MSR), and at 120 and 140% by its position between vVO2max and vmax (%AnSR). The authors conclude that expressing intensity this way takes individual anaerobic capacity into account and predicts times to exhaustion accurately.

Participants

n=10 ("ten subjects"). Sex, age and training status are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Four runs to exhaustion (tlim) at 90, 100, 120 and 140% of vVO2max.
Each velocity re-expressed as:

1. % of the difference between vVO2max and Cv (%AeSR)

2. % of the difference between vmax and Cv (%MSR)

3. % of the difference between vmax and vVO2max (%AnSR)

How Cv and vmax were determined is not given in the abstract.

Key Results

Intensitytlim (mean ± SD)Best predictorr
90% vVO2max839 ± 236 s%MSR-0.82 (p < 0.01)
100% vVO2max357 ± 110 s%MSR-0.75 (p < 0.01)
120% vVO2max122 ± 27 s%AnSR-0.83 (p < 0.01)
140% vVO2max65 ± 17 s%AnSR-0.94 (p < 0.001)
The same intensity relative to aerobic contribution did not represent the same absolute intensity for all runners, which could partly explain the variability in tlim.

Practical Application

In ten runners, time to exhaustion at the same percentage of vVO2max varied widely (at 100%: 357 ± 110 s), and was predicted best by where that speed sat inside each runner's own reserve: between critical velocity and maximal speed at 90-100% vVO2max (r = -0.82 and -0.75), and between vVO2max and maximal speed at 120-140% (r = -0.83 and -0.94). To "why can my training partner hold 120% of vVO2max much longer than I can?": the same percentage of vVO2max is a different share of each runner's speed reserve.
For reps faster than vVO2max, the authors' recommendation is to set speed as a percentage of the gap between vVO2max and maximal speed (%AnSR), not as a percentage of vVO2max alone.
For reps at 90-100% vVO2max, the gap between critical velocity and maximal speed (%MSR) was the better anchor.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the modern anaerobic speed reserve framework is REF-770; how the reserve profiles an 800-m runner is REF-888; Billat's vVO2max sessions set rep length from each runner's own tlim (REF-005).

Limitations

n=10; sex and training status not given in the abstract.
Correlations only; the prediction was not tested in a separate group or in training.
Methods for critical velocity and maximal velocity are not described in the abstract.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

n=10