Background: The peak velocity (Vpeak) has proven to be an excellent predictor of performance; but, it is necessary to test its applicability in prescribing training. The objective of
the study was to evaluate the effect of four weeks of training prescribed by the Vpeak and velocity corresponding to the occurrence of maximum oxygen uptake (vVO2max) in moderately trained endurance
Methods: Study participants were 16 runners aged between 18 and 35 years old who were randomized into two groups: GVO2 that held four weeks of training prescribed by vVO2max and its
respective time limit (tlim) and GVP that held training prescribed by Vpeak and its respective tlim (GVP). Four tests on a treadmill (Inbramed Super ATL, Porto Alegre – RS, Brasil) were performed: two
maximum incremental tests to determine the Vpeak and vVO2max and two for the determination of their tlim, and a performance of 10 km in official running track. All initial evaluations were also
conducted after a period of four weeks of training. Participants performed a total of 20 race training sessions, divided into continuous and interval training sessions. The variables are presented as
mean ± standard deviation. Data normality was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The comparison between the pre- and post-training for the two groups was made by mixed ANOVA for repeated measures.
Correlations between the variables with 10-km running performance were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.
Results: There was effect of training on the variables for the same group: Vpeak GVP (16.7 ± 1.2 vs 17.6 ± 1.5 km.h-1), GVO2 (17.1 ± 1.9 vs 17.7 ± 1.6 km.h-1); vVO2max GVP (16.4 ± 1.4
vs 17.0 ± 1.3 km.h-1), GVO2 (17.2 ± 1.7 vs 17.5 ± 1.9 km.h-1); the time to complete 10-km GVP (41.3 ± 2.4 vs 39.9 ± 2.7 min), GVO2 (40.1 ± 3.4 vs 39.2 ± 2.9 min) end 10-km mean speed (MS) GVP ( 14.6 ±
0.9 vs 15.1 ± 1.1 km.h-1) GVO2 (15.1 ± 1.3 vs 15.4 ± 1.2 km.h-1). The Vpeak showed high correlation with the performance in both pre and post-training times GVP (r = -0.97 vs -0.86) and GVO2 (r =
-0.95 vs -0.94), which was also observed for vVO2max GVP (r = -0.82 vs -0.88) and GVO2 (r = -0.99 vs -0.98). No difference was observed between the GVP and GVO2 for the variables.
Conclusions: It is concluded that the training prescribed by Vpeak promoted similar improvements to the training prescribed by vVO2max in moderately trained endurance runners. Thus,
we suggest the use of Vpeak for prescribing and monitoring endurance training, due to its practical application and low cost (i.e., no need for high cost of equipment) for its determination.