I'm a runner and coach, informally advising a local sports medicine clinic on setting up a regular assessment program for runners. The idea is to offer a program of assessments to look at functional strengths and weaknesses, injury risks and so on; and also some useful indicators of training progress. The idea is that athletes and keen amateurs could do this 3-4 times per year, get 'early warning' of injuries and advice on what to strengthen etc.
The question has come up of whether to include some kind of endurance 'measurement' as part of this. Options seem to be...
1. Don't even bother as they can just run a 5k somewhere
2. Graduated treadmill protocol with heart rate measurements
3. As above plus lactate testing, try to determine threshold
4. As above plus VO2-max measurement
None of us see much point in (4) - it would be expensive, hard to repeat, dubious relationship to actual speed and so on. The real question seems to be whether (3) adds anything that (2) won't tell you already.
The benefits from this should ideally be that
(a) people can go into a controlled environment without worrying about weather, conditions underfoot, mentality of race day and so on
(b) if you get fitter, it shows up
(c) being able to give indications of appropriate training and marathon paces to less experience athletes who can't work it out (i.e. your lactate threshold pace, or a suggested marathon pace for someone less experienced)
One example for level (2) is the "Hadd protocol": 2400m each at HR 140, 150, 160, 170 etc; record the speed at each heart rate.
Are there any well known protocols to do this?
Does anyone have any feelings on the benefits?
Any work done on estimating max HR from submaximal tests?
If there is anything you could usefully have measured by a bunch of physiotherapists and 'men-in-white-coats' every few months, what would it be?
Thanks to all...