Intermittent versus Continuous

Incremental Field Tests: Are

Maximal Variables Interchangeable?
Lorival J. Carminatti1,2, Carlos A. P. Possamai1, Marcelo de Moraes1,
Juliano F. da Silva2, , Ricardo D. de Lucas1,2, Naiandra Dittrich2, Luiz G.
A. Guglielmo2

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to compare physiological responses
derived from an incremental progressive field test with a constant speed
test i.e. intermittent versus continuous protocol. Two progressive
maximum tests (Carminatti`s test (T-CAR) and the Vameval test (T-
VAM)), characterized by increasing speed were used. T-CAR is an
intermittent incremental test, performed as shuttle runs; while T-VAM is a
continuous incremental test performed on an athletic track. Eighteen
physically active, healthy young subjects (21.9 ± 2.0 years; 76.5 ± 8.6 kg,
1.78 ± 0.08 m, 11.2 ± 5.4% body fat), volunteered for this study. Subjects
performed four different maximum test sessions conducted in the field:
two incremental tests and two time to exhaustion tests (TTE) at peak test
velocities (PV). No significant differences were found for PV (T-CAR =
15.6 ± 1.2; T-VAM = 15.5 ± 1.3 km·h-1) and maximal HR (T-CAR = 195 ±
11; T- VAM = 194 ± 14 bpm). During TTE, there were no significant
differences for HR (TTET-CAR and TTET-VAM = 192 ± 12 bpm). However,
there was a significant difference in TTE (p = 0.04) (TTET-CAR = 379 ± 84,
TTET-VAM = 338 ± 58 s) with a low correlation (r = 0.41). The blood lactate
concentration measured at the end of the TTE tests, showed no
significant difference (TTET-CAR = 13.2 ± 2.4 vs. TTET-VAM = 12.9 ± 2.4
mmol·l-1). Based on the present findings, it is suggested that the maximal
variables derived from T-CAR and T-VAM can be interchangeable in the
design of training programs.

Key words: Peak velocity, field test, aerobic evaluation, continuous

versus intermittent exercise testing, exercise prescription
 Key Points

 T-CAR is an intermittent shuttle run test that predicts the maximal

aerobic speed with accuracy, hence, test results could be
interchangeable with continuous straight-line tests.

 T-CAR provides valid field data for evaluating aerobic fitness.

 In comparison with T-VAM, T-CAR may be a more favourable way to

prescribe intermittent training using a shuttle-running protocol.

INTRODUCTION

The specificity of the fitness evaluation of athletes and its consequent

ecological validity is an important topic for the analysis and
characterization of sports. Traditionally, aerobic assessment has been
determined by continuous incremental tests (laboratory or field tests), in
order to obtain indices such as maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), maximal
oxygen uptake (VO2max) and lactate thresholds (Faude et al., 2009).

In order to overcome some of the issues associated with laboratory

testing, coaches and researchers have developed field based test
procedures, which more closely replicate the nature of a sport. For
instance, the University of Montreal track test (UM-TT) (Léger and
Boucher, 1980) and the Vameval test (T-VAM) (Cazorla, 1990), were
proposed for aerobic evaluation during running. However, since these
tests were characterized as continuous straight-line running (i.e. without
direction change), alternative modes of incremental tests were developed
using a shuttle run system (Bangsbo, 1994; Carminatti et al., 2004; Léger
and Lambert, 1982). Bangsbo, 1994 developed the Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test (Yo-Yo IR), in order to increase the specificity for the
assessment of team-sport athletes. The main objective of this test was to
evaluate the athlete’s ability to repeatedly perform and their potential to
recover from intensive exercise (Krustrup et al., 2003). Similarly,
Carminatti et al., 2004 proposed a progressive distance intermittent
shuttle-run test (T-CAR) for the purpose of evaluating maximal aerobic
power in team-sport athletes.
This test closely replicates the stop-start nature of a typical sports game
and includes a range of distances (rather than a single fixed distance)
associated with player movement during competitive match play. Thus,
the main difference between T-CAR and Yo-Yo tests, is that, during T-
CAR, the distance increases as a function of the progressive stages (i.e.
speed), instead of a fixed distance for all stages.

In addition, the longer distances covered during the latter stages of T-

CAR allows the athlete to have a greater distance to accelerate and reach
higher peak running velocities compared to shorter fixed distance
protocols (Fernandes da Silva et al., 2011). Such a protocol could provide
higher ecological validity and hence give better indications regarding the
abilities required to perform repeated high-intensity running compared
with tests that use set distances and identical recovery periods (Svensson
and Drust, 2005).

Due to the importance of the physiological indices obtained in these

different field tests for the purpose of training prescription, some studies
have been conducted comparing the physiological responses obtained
from continuous versus intermittent testing (Castagna, 2006; Castagna et
al., 2010). Ahmaidi et al., 1992 showed that the PV obtained from a 20-m
shuttle run test (20-m MST, multistage shuttle run test) was
underestimated when compared to the UM-TT (Léger and
Boucher, 1980). Likewise, Gallotti and Carminatti, 2008 compared the PV
from T-CAR with the PV from 20-m MST and found higher velocities in T-
CAR (+ 2.4 km·h-1). The reasons for such differences are likely due to the
nature of the shuttle run tests (i.e. fixed vs. progressive distance). Indeed
the start, speeding up, slowing down, stopping and change of direction
during the shuttle tests, involves broken acceleration and causes marked
vertical displacement of the centre of mass and lower stride efficiency
(Ahmaidi et al., 1992). The loss of efficiency probably also occurs in T-
CAR, however,to a lesser magnitude, since the greater distances covered
during the latter stages (>15km·h-1) allows the athletes to have more
distance to accelerate. Furthermore, T-CAR uses short rest periods
between shuttles (6 s recovery between 5 repetitions of 12 s of exercise)
contributing to the higher PV values in relation to 20-m MST. Thus, the
gradual increase in speed, with added distance and the pause during T-
CAR allows athletes to reach PV values that correspond to vVO2max
determined in a treadmill protocol (Dittrich et al., 2011). Therefore, we
hypothesized that PV derived from T-CAR would similar to the PV from T-
VAM. Such similarities could contribute to the development of
interchangeable models of training sessions, using variables determined
in intermittent shuttle test to be used in continuous straight-line training,
and of continuous straight-line test data to be used in intermittent shuttle
training.

In addition, considering the importance of an appropriate prescribed

exercise program, it is also necessary to know the amount of effort that
athletes could sustain (i.e., time to exhaustion) in both exercise models,
since it can be used as a reference for interval training (Billat et al., 1999;
Millet et al., 2003).

Therefore, the aim of the present study was twofold: 1) to analyze and
compare the PV and the HR responses between a continuous track test
(T-VAM) and an intermittent field test (T-CAR); 2) determine and compare
the time to exhaustion (TTE) at 100% of the PV in both tests.

METHODS
Subjects

Eighteen healthy, physically active male physical education students

(21.9 ± 2.0 years; 76.5 ± 8.6 kg; 1.78 ± 0.08 m; 11.2 ± 5.4 % body fat)
volunteered for the present study. Written informed consent documents
were received from all the participants after a detailed explanation about
the aims, benefits and risks involved with this investigation. Participants
were told they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without
penalty. All procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the
State University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.

Procedures

Subjects were tested on four separate occasions (at least 72 hours apart)
and in a random order for the field-based tests. Initially, they performed
two incremental tests and then two time to exhaustion tests (TTE) at PV.
Prior to the first test, all the subjects were assessed for body mass (kg),
height (m) and skinfold thickness (mm). The TTE tests were randomly
performed on separate days with at least 48 hours between tests. All
tests were performed on a 200-m outdoor running track (synthetic
surface) at the same hour of the day in order to avoid circadian variation
in performance (Carter et al., 2002). All subjects were advised to maintain
a regular diet during the day before testing (keeping the same meals) and
to refrain from smoking and caffeinated drinks during the two hours prior
to testing.

Incremental running tests

T-CAR consists of incremental intermittent shuttle runs performed

between two lines set at progressive distances apart (Fernandes da Silva
et al., 2011). The test protocol starts at a speed of 9 km·h-1 and a
corresponding running base of 15-m, which is increased by 1-m at every
90 s stage. Each distance stage (i.e. from 15-m to exhaustion) is
composed of 5 repetitions of 12 s shuttle runs interspersed by a 6 s walk
to be performed between two lines set 5-m apart from the start/finish line
(see Figure 1). During T-CAR, the running pace is controlled by a
constant timing (i.e. 6 s) audio cue (beep) which determines the running
speed to be performed between the parallel lines established on the track
and marked by cones. Failure to achieve the shuttle run in time to the
prescribed audio cue on 2 consecutive occasions resulted in termination
of the test. Hence, the PV was derived from the last distance covered (i.e.
at exhaustion). For instance, an athlete who completed the 30-m stage
had a PV corresponding to 18 km·h-1.

T-VAM was performed on a 200-m outdoor running track (synthetic

surface). Ten cones were placed on the track every 20-m as a reference.
The test starts at a running speed of 8.5 km·h-1 and increases by 0.5
km·h-1 every minute until exhaustion (Cazorla, 1990). Participants
adjusted their running speed to the cones placed at 20-m intervals. The
test ended when the subject could no longer maintain the required
running speed dictated by the audio beep, for 3 consecutive occasions.

During both test procedures (T-CAR and T-VAM), heart rate (HR) was
monitored at 5-second intervals using the Polar S610i system (Polar
Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The HRmax was the highest 5 s average
HR value achieved during the test.

Time to exhaustion at PV

All subjects were requested to perform a constant speed test to

exhaustion at the PV in both protocols previously described. During TTET-
VAM cones were set at 40-m intervals along the 200-m track (inside the first
lane). The running pace was dictated by audio cue and the participants
had to be within 2-m of the cones at each beep. The subjects were
controlled by two researchers to ensure that they ran at the required
speed and encouraged them when they began to have difficulties with the
pace. The tests were stopped when the subjects were unable to maintain
the required pace, that is, they were unable to reach the required cones
on each audio cue (a 2-m shortfall was used as an objective criteria).

Based on the distances attained in T-CAR (i.e. PV), athletes performed

the TTET-CAR. Regarding the TTE of T-CAR, the distance to be covered on
the fixed intervals of 6 s, corresponded to the PV reached during the T-
CAR test. The same pattern of the T-CAR test was applied, that is, the
subjects were required to run for 12 s for a set distance (five repetitions),
returning to the start point where they completed 6 s rest, this procedure
was repeated until exhaustion. The pauses (i.e. 6 s) were not included in
calculating the TTE.

Prior to each TTE test, the subjects completed a 5 min warm-up, running
at 70% of PV, with specific protocols (intermittent, shuttle or continuous
straight-line), followed by 5 min rest. After the warm-up phase, 25μl of
capillary blood was collected from an ear lobe to measure blood lactate
concentration ([La]).

In all the tests, each subject was verbally encouraged to perform their
best. No feedback was given to athletes regarding HR or elapsed time. A
blood sample was collected from an earlobe 1 min after completion of the
TTE, to determine the final blood lactate concentration.

HR and [La] measurements

For storage and analysis of the HR during the tests, HR monitors were
used (S610i system Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) with Polar
Precision Performance SW® software. The analysis of lactate was
performed using an electrochemical analyzer (YSI 1500 STAT, Yellow
Springs, OH, USA).

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. A Shapiro-Wilk test

was used to verify the normality of the data. In order to compare the
differences between both tests, Student’s t-test for paired sample was
used. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to examine the
relationships between variables. The magnitude of effects was
qualitatively assessed according to Hopkins (2001) as follows: r < 0.1,
trivial; 0.1-0.3, small; 0.3-0.5, moderate; 0.5-0.7, large; 0.7-0.9, very large;
> 0.9, nearly perfect; and 1.0, perfect. Heteroscedasticity (i.e. systematic
error) was verified by plotting the absolute differences of PV against the
individual means (i.e. Bland-Altman plot) and calculating the correlation
coefficient, in order to test if slope was significantly different from zero
value. The 95% absolute limits of agreement were calculated according to
Atkinson and Nevill, 1998 and Ludbrook, 2010.

All analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism software package for
Windows (v. 5.0 GraphPad Prism Software Inc, San Diego, CA).
Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

The PV obtained in both protocols (PVT-CAR = 15.6 ± 1.2; PVT-VAM = 15.5 ±

1.3 km·h-1) showed no significant difference and showed a nearly perfect
correlation (r = 0.98, p < 0.01). There was no systematic bias (i.e.
heteroscedasticity) in the data from both tests for peak velocity. Figure
2 shows the Bland-Altman plot with 95% limits of agreement for peak
velocity between tests.

Regarding the heart rate response, the HRmax during T-CAR (195 ± 11
bpm) was not significantly different from T-VAM (194 ± 14 bpm) and both
were highly correlated (r = 0.93, p < 0.01). The HR response during T-
CAR and T-VAM are shown in Figure 3.

The TTE values, HR at the end (HRend) and average-HR (HRavg)

derived from the constant speed tests are presented in Table 1.
Regarding the TTE, a significant difference was found (p < 0.001).

There was a modest, non-significant correlation between both TTE tests

(r = 0.41, p=0.09). The final [La] was not significantly different between
tests (TTET-CAR = 13.2 ± 2.4 vs. TTET-VAM = 12.9 ± 2.4 mmol·l-1).

DISCUSSION
The major finding of the present study indicates that PV values obtained
from two different incremental field tests, that is, one intermittent shuttle
run test (T-CAR) and another traditional track test (T-VAM), are
interchangeable.

The Bland-Altman’s limits of agreement showed that individual variation

was about ± 0.5 km·h-1 of the actual value (Figure 2). Therefore, it can be
observed that T-CAR is a feasible method to estimate maximal aerobic
speed, comparable with corresponding values derived from a continuous
straight-line protocol (T-VAM).

Similar to our observations, Dupónt et al., 2010 showed that the mean PV
obtained from Yo-Yo IR level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) was not significantly different
from the University Montreal Track Test (UM-TT) peak velocity. However,
this result did not show a constant error (i.e. heteroscedasticity), and
therefore the PV was not interchangeable, that is, subjects with PVUM-
-1
TT higher than 16 km.h presented an increased error of PV derived from
Yo-Yo IR1. The present study showed no systematic bias for either test.
The results of the present study are also different from the findings of
Gallotti and Carminatti, 2008 who reported a study comparing T-CAR and
20-m MST. The authors found that PVT-CAR was significantly higher than
PV20m-MST (+ 2.4 km·h-1). The differences were likely to be associated with
the pauses in the intermittent model (T-CAR) and by the fact that the
distance (shuttle-running bouts) increased during the test. Thus, athletes
were able to perform a slower acceleration at the beginning of the shuttle
and/or to resume the speed after the direction change especially at the
higher speeds of the test (>15 km·h-1), when compared to the 20-m MST.

According to Buchheit et al., 2010, running with direction change

demands a break followed by an acceleration, thus, the importance of the
lower limb muscle strength and endurance are also factors in this
exercise model. Thus, compared with continuous straight-line exercise,
running with direction changes could present a greater physiological load,
as supported by an increased cardiorespiratory response, muscular
O2 uptake, blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion
(Buchheit et al., 2011).

Ahmaidi et al., 1992 compared the maximal aerobic speed of three

different protocols (20m-MST, UM-TT and an incremental treadmill test).
The authors found no significant difference in VO2max, HRmax and
[La]end among these tests. However, the PV reached in 20-m MST was
significantly lower when compared to the treadmill (16.3 %) and UM-TT
(19.3 %), i.e., a difference of approximately 3 km.h-1 was found,
confirming that the PV derived from the 20-m MST is not a reliable index
for prescribe training of aerobic power, because it underestimates the
maximal aerobic speed during straight-line running. The constant
direction changes in a short distance (i.e. 20-m) during some tests (20-m
MST and Yo-Yo tests), inhibit subjects reaching their maximum speeds.
The act of starting, speeding up, slowing down, stopping and changing
direction during the shuttle run tests involves numerous accelerations and
decelerations, resulting in marked vertical displacement of the centre of
mass and lower stride efficiency (Ahmaidi et al., 1992). In the present
study, a possible explanation for the similar PV between T-CAR
(intermittent shuttle running) and T-VAM (straight-line running), could be
based on the partial recovery provided by the 6 s rests between the 12 s
of running in T-CAR, counterbalancing the extra energy expended
resulting from acceleration, deceleration and direction changes. To our
knowledge, this is the first intermittent shuttle test with direction changes
that has a similar PV compared with a continuous track test.

The HRmax values showed no significant difference (Table 1). This result
agrees with Krustrup et al., 2003, who found that the HRmax obtained in
the Yo-Yo IR1 (187 ± 2) was the same as derived from the treadmill (189
± 2 ), and Dupónt et al., 2010 who found similar values comparing Yo-Yo
IR1 (191 ± 8) and the UM-TT (192 ± 8) together with a very large
correlation score (r = 0.88).

According to the present data, it appears that the submaximal HR values

are similar to T-VAM for a given speed (%PV) during T-CAR (Figure 2).
This similarity in HR values confirms that, despite the shuttle run
characteristics required by T-CAR (i.e. acceleration, deceleration, stop, u-
turn), the progressive increment in the distance and the frequent pauses
among shuttle-runs contributes to similar HR values compared to a
continuous straight-line model. This is valuable from a practical point of
view, since HR monitors are commonly used as a criterion measure to
control and regulate training intensity (Stolen et al., 2005).

Regarding the time to exhaustion, significant differences can be observed

between tests (Table 1). Practically, this difference means about 85 s,
higher in T-VAM. These TTE values are in agreement with the data
reported in the literature, which indicates a TTE at maximal aerobic speed
ranging from 2.5 to 10 minutes (Billat et al., 1999). Concerning the
difference between TTE, it appears that the cost of accelerating,
decelerating and changing direction in shuttle tests determines a
decrease in running economy (Bucheit et al. 2011), in turn impairing a
sustained time at PV.

Moreover, Bertuzzi et al., 2012 demonstrated that total energy production,

VO2peak, and lower limb muscle power are the main physiological and
neuromuscular determinants of TTE at vVO2max during treadmill running.
To our knowledge, there are no studies that analysed similar associations
during shuttle-run exhaustion tests. However, Padulo et al., 2012 found a
systematic increase in ground contact time and step frequency during a
shuttle run (i.e. Yo-Yo endurance test) at 95% of PV. This result suggests
that an increased energy cost occurred due to increased lower limb
muscle activity triggered by increased ground contact time.

Thus, based on these observations, it may be concluded that differences

in TTE between straight-line and shuttle run protocols can be explained
by greater neuromuscular and physiological overload involved in the
shuttle run model (Bucheit et al. 2011), impairing the lower limb in
generation of muscle power (Padulo et al., 2012).

Furthermore TTE can be used to estimate the bout duration of high

intensity intermittent training to elicit a high percentage of VO2max (Billat
et al., 1999; Millet et al., 2003). Previous studies have suggested that
bout duration during high intensity intermittent training at PV could lie
between 50% and 60% of TTE, with a 1:1 work: recovery ratio (Millet et
al., 2003; Esfarjani and Laursen, 2007).

Considering that the present study was conducted with physically active
students, the results must be limited to people with similar characteristics.
Further studies addressing male and female team-sport players are
warranted.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the present study showed that the PV obtained
in T-VAM versus T-CAR were similar and demonstrate a high level of
agreement, thus, the maximal variables derived from T-CAR and T-VAM
could be exchanged when designing training programs. However, caution
must be taken regarding interchangeability of time to exhaustion at PV.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
LORIVAL J. CARMINATTI
Employment: Lecturer of State University of Santa Catarina
Degree: MSc
Research interests: Field tests, Team sports
E-mail: [email protected]

CARLOS A. P. POSSAMAI
Employment: Student of Physical Education
Degree: Undergraduate
Research interests: Field tests, Team sports

MARCELO DE MORAES
Employment: Fitness instructor
Degree: Undergraduate
Research interests: Field tests, Team sports

JULIANO F. DA SILVA
Employment: PhD Student of the Physical Education Post-graduation
program, Federal University of Santa Catarina
Degree: MSc
Research interests: Soccer training and tests.
E-mail: [email protected]

RICARDO D. DE LUCAS
Employment: Lecturer of State University of Santa Catarina
Degree: PhD
Research interests: Endurance sports, Training and tests
E-mail: [email protected]

NAIANDRA DITTRICH
Employment: PhD Student of the Physical Education Post-graduation
program, Federal University of Santa Catarina
Degree: MSc
Research interests: Exercise physiology, Maximal lactate steady state
E-mail: [email protected]

LUIZ G. A. GUGLIELMO
Employment: Professor of the Physical Education Post-graduation
program, Federal University of Santa Catarina
Degree: PhD
Research interests: Exercise physiology, Maximal lactate steady state
E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Ahmaidi S., Collomp K., Caillaud C., Préfaut C. (1992) Maximal and
functional aerobic capacity as assessed by two graduated field methods in
comparison to laboratory exercise testing in moderately trained subjects.
International Journal of Sports Medicine 13, 243-248.
Amann M., Hopkins W.G., Marcora S.M. (2008) Similar sensitivity of time to
exhaustion and time-trial time to changes in endurance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 40, 574-578.
Atkinson G., Nevill A.M. (1998) Statistical Methods For Assessing
Measurement Error (Reliability) in Variables Relevant to Sports Medicine.
Sports Medicine 26, 217-238.
Bangsbo J. (1994) Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach.
Bagsvaerd, Denmark. HO Storm.
Bertuzzi R., Bueno S., Pasqua L.A., Acquesta F.M., Batista M.B., Roschel H.,
Kiss M.A., Serrão J.C, Tricoli V., Ugrinowitsch C. (2012) Bioenergetics and
neuromuscular determinants of the time to exhaustion at velocity corresponding
to VO2max in recreational long-distance runners. Journal Strength and
Conditioning Research 26, 2096-2102.
Billat V.L., Flechet B., Petit B., Muriaux G., Koralsztein J. P. (1999) Interval
training at VO2 max: effects on aerobic performance and overtraining markers.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31, 156-163.
Brughelli M., Cronin J., Levin G., Chaouachi A. (2008) Understanding
change of direction ability in sport: a review of resistance training studies. Sports
Medicine 38, 1045-1063.
Buchheit M., Bishop D., Haydar B., Nakamura F.Y., Ahmaidi S. (2010)
Physiological responses to shuttle repeated-sprint running. International Journal
of Sports Medicine 26, 402-409.
Buchheit M., Haydar B., Hader K., Ufland P., Ahmaidi S. (2011) Assessing
Running Economy During Field Running with Changes of Direction:
Application to 20m Shuttle Runs. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance 6, 380-395.
Carminatti L.J., Lima-Silva A.E., De-Oliveira F.R. (2004) Aerobic fitness in
intermittent sports - results and evidences of validity of an intermittent
incremental test. Brazilian Journal of Exercise Physiology 3, 120-.
 Carter H., Jones A.M., Maxwell N.S., Doust J.H. (2002) The effect of
interdian and diurnal variation on oxygen uptake kinetics during treadmill
running. Journal of Sports Science 20, 901-909.
Castagna C., Barbero Alvarez J.C. (2010) Physiological demands of an
intermittent futsal-oriented high-intensity test. Journal Strength and Conditioning
Research 24, 2322-2329.
Castagna C., Impellizzeri F. M., Chamari K., Carlomagno D., Rampinini E.
(2006) Aerobic fitness and Yo-Yo continous and intermittent tests performances
in soccer players: A correlation study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 20, 320-325.
Cazorla G. (1990) Proceedings of the International Symposium of
Guadeloupe. Field tests to evaluate aerobic capacity and maximal aerobic speed.
Edts. Actshng and Areaps.
Dittrich N., Fernandes da Silva J., Castagna C., De Lucas R.D., Guglielmo
L.G.A. (2011) Validity of Carminatti’s test to determine physiological indices of
aerobic power and capacity in soccer and futsal players. Journal Strength and
Conditioning and Research 25, 3099-3106.
Dupónt G., Defontaine M., Bosquet L., Blondel N., Moalla W., Berthoin S.
(2010) Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test versus the Université de Montréal Track
Test: relation with a high-intensity intermittent exercise. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport 13, 146-150.
Esfarjani F., Laursen P.B. (2007) Manipulating high-intensity interval
training: effects on VO2max, the lactate threshold and 3000 m running
performance in moderately trained males. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport 10, 27-35.
Faude O., Kindermann W., Meyer T. (2009) Lactate threshold concepts: how
valid are they?. Sports Medicine 39, 469-490.
Fernandes da Silva J., Guglielmo L.G.A., Carminatti L.J., De Oliveira F.R.,
Dittrich N., Paton C. (2011) Validity and reliability of a new test (Carminatti’s
test) for soccer players compared to laboratory-based measures. Journal of Sports
Sciences 29, 1621-1628.
Gallotti F.M., Carminatti L.J. (2008) Brazilian Journal of Exercise Physiology
and Prescription.
Hopkins W.G., Schabort E.J., Hawley J.A. (2001) Reliability of power in
physical performance tests. Sports Medicine 31, 211-234.
Krustrup P., Mohr M., Amstrup T., Rysgaard T., Johansen J., Steensberg A.,
Pedersen P.K., Bangsbo J. (2003) The yo-yo intermittent recovery test:
physiological response, reliability, and validity. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise 35, 697-705.
 Léger L, Lambert J. (1982) A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to
predict VO2 max. European Journal of Applied Physiol ogy Occupational
Physiology 49, 1-12.
Léger L., Boucher R. (1980) An indirect continuous running multistage field
test: the University de Montréal Track Test. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport
Sciences 5, 77-84.
Ludbrook J. (2010) Confidence in Altman-Bland plots: a critical review of the
method of differences. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology
37, 143-149.
Millet G.P., Candau R., Fattori P., Bignet F., Varray A. (2003) VO2 responses
to different intermittent runs at velocity associated with VO2 max. Canadian
Journal of Applied Physiology 28, 410-423.
Padulo J., D'Ottavio S., Pizzolato F., Smith L., Annino G. (2012) Kinematic
analysis of soccer players in shuttle running. International Journal of Sports
Medicine 33, 459-462.
Stolen T., Chamari K., Castagna C., Wisloff U. (2005) Physiology of Soccer:
An Update. Sports Medicine 35, 501-536.
Svensson M., Drust B. (2005) Journal of Sports Science.