Understanding Max Aerobic Speed (MAS) Based Training
Intro
In recent years, the popularity of using MAS informed training has boomed in its application, particularly amongst field sports and practitioners aiming to chase specific energy system development with their athletes. This article aims to equip both coaches and athletes with more information about exactly what MAS is and why we would use it to inform training, how to appropriately apply it in a progressive fashion over the course of an off/pre-season, why you may choose not to use it at all, and shine a light on some common mistakes often stumbled over when application is attempted. A lot of the insights shared in this article are derived from personal experience and opinion and so if you are a coach reading this, I urge you to derive those of your own too.
What?
Maximum oxygen uptake (or VO2max) is largely deemed an acceptable parameter for measuring cardiovascular fitness. VO2max refers to the maximum rate at which the cardiorespiratory (heart and lungs) and working muscles, can effectively uptake, deliver, and use oxygen during exercise. The direct determination of VO2 however, can be complex and time-consuming, and so the use of field-based alternatives that can be widely administered in the team setting have been widely applied. These tests rely on the linear relationship between running speed/power output and VO2 max to give coaches and practitioners a handle on an estimated minimal running speed (MAS) that would elicit an athletes VO2 max. With knowledge of this speed, practitioners are then able to prescribe training at varying percentages of MAS (with these percentages themselves being representative of %VO2Max) and thus evoke improvements in VO2.
Why? Why Not?
The benefits of improved VO2 and aerobic fitness are rife in the research base, including, but not exclusive to, greater recovery from high intensity exercise both short & long term, improved resting metabolic function, increased global cardio health & function, and improved substrate utilisation profiles (another blog in itself…). Despite this, there are still disagreements between practitioners as to whether the use of MAS informed training is a worthwhile one amongst team sport athletes – with the prosecution often arguing that there is enough of a sub-maximal training stimulus across the training week, that these kind of energy system responses can be evoked in technical drills, or specific HR’s can be targeted through the manipulation of small sided games (SSG’s), and that time in the training week spent dedicated to running from cone A to cone B at a prescribed running speed, is time that is much more worthwhile spent in other means. I’ll let you make up your own mind there, and later on, I’ll elaborate on where I think the true value lies.
Testing
It would be great if there was a one-size-fits-all, universally agreed “gold standard” for a field based measure of MAS wouldn’t it? But just like the ending of Game of Thrones, and Line of Duty, I have to disappoint you… Seeing as we’re all trying to indirectly measure the same metric it would certainly be nice, however we all (myself included) have our preferences. Inevitably, these tests fall into one of two categories, a set distance “time-trial” (typically 1000-1500m), or a progressive RAMP test (incremental increases in running speed until failure occurs). My advice, pick which one works for you in terms of the logistics, the ease, and the viability of the chosen test.
Some (including the FA) use 10-12 lengths of a football pitch for time. The pro’s? Easy to implement, minimal equipment (the pitch already exists, just a timer required), easy to repeat, and like all time-trial based methods, the sooner it is completed for the athlete, the sooner it is over, and so a true max-effort is usually pumped out across the distance. But, like all the tests about to be mentioned, there are limitations to be considered, the biggest one of which I’ll come on to in the following section, but another, not all football pitches are the same length – and so extrapolating data to different pitches in different venues does still require accurate measurement of pitch length. Also, unless you have the luxury of an indoor pitch, the surface can have a significant impact on time taken. If rock hard, soaking wet, or just right, the impact is going to be potentially significant when the athlete crosses the finish line and unfortunately, the environmental conditions are never under your control. All of these factors are worth considering, alongside the two big ones coming soon… Other variations of this test exist, a simple 1km or 1500m run (either on a track or in shuttle forms), the “Broncho” (5 times through 1x20m shuttle, 1x40m shuttle, and 1x60m shuttle, equating to 1200m) amongst others, with the chosen distance being divided by the time taken in order to give a m/s for MAS.
Alternatively, are incremental RAMP based testing protocols such as the IR-YoYo, the multi-stage bleep test, and the 30:15 test. These tests start at a comfortable intensity, with a set (considerably shorter) distance to be covered within a set time frame. The time required to complete that same distance is gradually reduced, thus requiring a increase in exertion and consequent running speed, with the test culminating when the distance isn’t fulfilled in the time required and boom, you have your MAS. Again, plenty of pro’s for these styles of tests and Martin Bucheit in particular continues to publish outstanding resources and research on the implementation of the 30:15 test, but my biggest personal gripe with these tests isn’t a physical one at all. In my time as an S&C coach, both conducting and seeing these types of tests conducted, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I’ve seen an athlete “pulled-out” by the coach due to failing to meet the distance. The overwhelming majority of the time, the athlete doesn’t set out on their next rep, they throw in the towel, at their perceived exhaustion – and although this may well be their true maximum, how often is this done because an athlete “thinks” they have no more to give, only to tell their coach 60s later that they wish they went on another rep… A former colleague of mine Tom Walton, actually didn’t see this as a con of the test, and instead used to play on the psyche of his athletes prior to a test, almost goading his athletes into a true maximal effort with a pre-test, Oscar worthy, Remember the Titans style, speech about “what kind of team-mate do you want to be? Are you going to give up when it gets tough?” that would give Denzel a run for his money.
Considerations
The first primary consideration, and one that is nearly almost overlooked, if you are going to use a time trial-based test such as those aforementioned, is that turning takes time. The aim of the test is to aggregate a constant running speed to stick a pin in as MAS, but shuttle based variations of the 1km, 1200m, 1500m tests inevitably incorporate 180 degree turns. Different coaches and practitioners apply different models here, but the most commonly one applied (from my experience) is simply accounting for 0.7s per turn. So, in a pitch length and back 1km test, there are going to be 9 turns, meaning that before deducing a MAS from the 1000m time, you would deduct 6.3s from the finish time to account for the time spent turning.
*From a coaching perspective, using and implementing both MAS tests and based training, meant encouraging athletes to slow down as late as possible, and accelerate out of the turn effectively, to allow them to spend as much time as possible at the actual prescribed speed – as too short a shuttle distance inevitably leads to an athlete, slowly building speed, then gradually cruising back down the gears to prepare for the turn, and thus actually spend very little time at a stable running speed.
Dan Baker once mentioned to me the theory of taking “speed-momentum” into account as we know mass effects momentum, and therefor you would deduct 0.7s per turn for the 70kg athlete, 0.8s for the 80kg athlete, and 1s for the 100kg athlete and so on, but whether this has wide applied use I am yet to discover (the counter argument being the strong 100kg athlete who is very good at changing direction may actually turn quicker than a weak 60kg athlete, and thus falsely distorting the total time – but we’re nit picking here). Why does this matter? If you are going to prescribe straight line, or treadmill based MAS protocols and you genuinely want to do so with as much accuracy and validity as possible, then you need to account for the turns in your testing procedure. If you’re then going to prescribe pitch based, shuttle style running from the MAS, then you can re-adjust running again, by re-applying the time taken per turn, per rep (minimal differences, but the 0.7s allowance in a 20s style out and back can be the difference between running at 105% and 107-109% MAS). The main take-away here is consistency, if you’re going to be prescriptive, be prescriptive properly.
This leads me nicely to the next point in that repeatability is vital. Whatever test you choose, ensure that the conditions and the terms of the test are as repeatable as possible, to allow you to appropriately monitor for smallest worthwhile change (look up Will Hodgkins if you need help working out meaningful change).
*side note, calculating smallest worthwhile change is incredibly important in my opinion for longitudinal data, and ensuring your athletes understand it to. I’ve seen athletes beat themselves up for falling 2s short of their PB, or jump for joy at a 3s improvement, when in the grand scheme of things, looking over longitudinal data suggest that neither of these changes are strong enough to hang your hat on an improvement or decrement to their fitness levels.
I’ve heard stories of coaches taking in MAS times through the off-season and comparing within squads, with some players running laps of their local track, some doing 50m shuttles for 1km, and others running grid style squares for 1200m. These aren’t comparable and don’t allow for you to appropriately re-test further along the line. So find something that works and stick with it…
The issue with repeatability (I know, just told you to go to the edge of the earth for it), is that it inevitably induces learning effect. Athletes simply get better at running the test, whether it’s pacing, optimising their turning strategies, or selecting more appropriate footwear… Meaning again, we may see athletes dancing for joy at a better score, when they’re in fact, no fitter than they were last time round, they’ve just got better at understanding the test. This in my opinion, is just something you take on the chin, if you’re working with a player, or group of players, this is somewhat inevitable, and again highlights the importance of semi-regular re-testing to gather more information, and validate genuine improvements in performance markers.
Programming
So, you’ve done your bit. You’ve picked your test, you’ve executed your data collection, you’re happy with your MAS assessment, now what? I have long been an advocate of utilising MAS based training at certain times of the year (I’ll come on to that…), but in fairly fixed methods, after a fair few years of trial, and inevitably, error. Again, these are just my view points and the main takeaways I’ve listed below.
MAS means MAS – If we’re trying to effect MAS, then we need to train around it. I’ve seen coaches prescribing sessions at 130% or even 150% of MAS under the guise of MAS training, which it simply isn’t. Don’t get me wrong, maximal training and tempo style training can indirectly have positive effects on MAS, but it’s the equivalent of using a 12 rep max in the gym, to programme your heavy 4x4 sessions, they’re just relying on different qualities. These speeds prescribed fall under the umbrella of high-speed running (HSR) for the most part, and their far-detachment from MAS means they rely on largely different demands in terms of energy supply, and muscle demand. I seldom veer further away from 90-110% MAS in those training sessions, and stick to keeping speed/tempo work as a separate entity.
How much is too much? - A currently (at time of writing) unpublished piece of research carried out in a premier league football academy, suggested a point of diminishing returns beyond 11minutes above MAS per week when it comes to provoking a training response. Something I adopted working in professional football too, and usually split across two sessions (a larger portion of those minutes were accrued @ or <MAS, with the smaller remaining portion accrued >MAS, and a gradual transient shift across each training week towards more time at the latter). That may not seem a lot, but I personally believe because of the level of control and the precision of prescription, the stimulus required doesn’t need to be so immense it swallows up your training week. This approach from experience lends itself to improvement in the given parameters, whilst also providing time for speed development and speed exposure across the rest of the training week, whilst still supplementing a sport focussed training program (technical/tactical).
I’ve given a vague example of how to program in the aforementioned, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat, as a closing note here, I personally prefer to keep working reps above 20s work, with a preferential toward 60s+, to accommodate HR drift and ensure we’re stabilising outputs across a session. The shorter end of this interval style training becomes almost too-stop-start, and although arguably “more specific”, we’re chasing a physiological metric here that lends itself to a sport, not direct sport specificity.
When? Where?
Where does it fit in the wider program? If we’re talking seasonal field-based sports such as football and rugby, then I think MAS is a great tool for both the off-season and early pre-season. It allows for accurate prescription of progressive overload, as well as allowing for individuality, and bespoke prescription of work-load to ensure that all players can get to where they need to be. It specifically targets physiological outcomes that lend themselves to athletes being more robust in season, and better equipped to recover from session to session which in turn allows for a greater proportion of time in the late pre-season and in-season, to work with the technical coach executing technical and tactical training (the stuff that really matters!) with match demands, speed exposure, and SSG use doing more than enough to maintain the systemic changes targeted early doors. Our job’s as S&C coaches (in my eyes) is to supplement the athletes ability to perform their sport and to give them better tools to face the sporting demands. MAS and improvements in VO2, is a vehicle to allow that, and although by no means is it the be all and end all, I personally believe it has a place in the program, but don’t be putting it up on a pedestal… It may be that you decide some members of the team need it and others don’t, others may well benefit from more time spent elsewhere, and that decision making is absolutely the art of coaching.
Closing Notes
I didn’t intend for this blog to be over 2,500 words, but there we go. If you’ve found it in any way interesting or have any questions then please leave them in the comments below or contact me via the website or social media channels. Always happy to chew the fat with coaches or athletes that are interested in the topic area. If you’re an athlete that wants additional support in improving the often under-appreciated side of the “S&C” equation, then get in touch, reach out, and see what PRPerformance can do for you.
Thanks for reading,
Paul
