Intensity Distribution of Collegiate Cross-Country Competitions

• Published in: Sports (Basel) Vol. 12; no. 1; p. 18
• Main Authors: Perez, Noah, Miller, Payton, Farrell, 3rd, John W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.01.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: Analysis; Biological markers; College sports; Consumption; critical velocity; Cross country running; Dynamics; D′ prime; Environmental conditions; exercise; Exercise intensity; exercise intensity zones; Fitness equipment; Fitness training programs; Gas exchange; Global positioning systems; GPS; Heart beat; Heart rate; intensity distribution; Investigations; Males; Metabolism; performance modeling; Physical fitness; Physiology; Running; Sports sciences; Track & field; Velocity; Warm up (exercise); United States; United States > US; running; exercise intensity zones; critical velocity; performance modeling; D′ prime; exercise; intensity distribution
• ISSN: 2075-4663; 2075-4663
• DOI: 10.3390/sports12010018

The primary purpose of the current investigation was to perform an intensity distribution analysis of a collegiate cross-country (CC) competition, with a secondary purpose to compare race times (RT) with modeled performance times (MPT). Participants completed an incremental treadmill test to determine gas exchange threshold (GET), while the three-minute all-out test was conducted on a 400 m outdoor track to determine critical velocity (CV) and D prime (D'). GET and CV were used as physiological markers for the intensity zones based on heart rate (HR) and running velocity (RV), while CV and D' were used to determine modeled performance times. Participants wore a Global Positioning System (GPS) watch and heart rate (HR) monitor during competition races. Statistically, less time was spent in HR Zone 1 (12.1% ± 13.7%) compared to Zones 2 (37.6% ± 30.2%) and 3 (50.3% ± 33.7%), while a statically greater amount of time was spent in RV Zone 2 (75.0% ± 20.7%) compared to Zones 1 (8.4% ± 14.0%) and 3 (16.7% ± 19.1%). RTs (1499.5 ± 248.5 seconds (s)) were statistically slower compared to MPTs (1359.6 ± 192.7 s). The observed differences in time spent in each zone are speculated to be related to the influence of environmental conditions on internal metrics and difference in the kinetics of HR and running velocity. Differences in RTs and MPTs are likely due to the MPT equation modeling all-out performance and not considering race strategies.