# Cooper Test Provides Better Half-Marathon Performance Prediction in Recreational Runners Than Laboratory Tests

Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón; Carnero, Elvis A; Giráldez García, Manuel Avelino; Alacid, Fernando; Rosemann, Thomas; Nikolaidis, Pantelis T; Knechtle, Beat (2019). Cooper Test Provides Better Half-Marathon Performance Prediction in Recreational Runners Than Laboratory Tests. Frontiers in Physiology, 10:1349.

## Abstract

This study compared the ability to predict performance in half-marathon races through physiological variables obtained in a laboratory test and performance variables obtained in the Cooper field test. Twenty-three participants (age: 41.6 ± 7.6 years, weight: 70.4 ± 8.1 kg, and height: 172.5 ± 6.3 cm) underwent body composition assessment and performed a maximum incremental graded exercise laboratory test to evaluate maximum aerobic power and associated cardiorespiratory and metabolic variables. Cooper's original protocol was performed on an athletic track and the variables recorded were covered distance, rating of perceived exertion, and maximum heart rate. The week following the Cooper test, all participants completed a half-marathon race at the maximum possible speed. The associations between the laboratory and field tests and the final time of the test were used to select the predictive variables included in a stepwise multiple regression analysis, which used the race time in the half marathon as the dependent variable and the laboratory variables or field tests as independent variables. Subsequently, a concordance analysis was carried out between the estimated and actual times through the Bland-Altman procedure. Significant correlations were found between the time in the half marathon and the distance in the Cooper test (r = -0.93; p < 0.001), body weight (r = 0.40; p < 0.04), velocity at ventilatory threshold 1, (r = -0.72; p < 0.0001), speed reached at maximum oxygen consumption (vVO$_{2}$max), (r = -0.84; p < 0.0001), oxygen consumption at ventilatory threshold 2 (VO$_{2}$VT2) (r = -0.79; p < 0.0001), and VO$_{2}$max (r = -0.64; p < 0.05). The distance covered in the Cooper test was the best predictor of time in the half-marathon, and might predicted by the equation: Race time (min) = 201.26 - 0.03433 (Cooper test in m) (R$^{2}$ = 0.873, SEE: 3.78 min). In the laboratory model, vVO2max, and body weight presented an R$^{2}$ = 0.77, SEE 5.28 min. predicted by equation: Race time (min) = 156.7177 - 4.7194 (vVO$_{2}$max) - 0.3435 (Weight). Concordance analysis showed no differences between the times predicted in the models the and actual times. The data indicated a high predictive power of half marathon race time both from the distance in the Cooper test and vVO2max in the laboratory. However, the variable associated with the Cooper test had better predictive ability than the treadmill test variables. Finally, it is important to note that these data may only be extrapolated to recreational male runners.

## Abstract

This study compared the ability to predict performance in half-marathon races through physiological variables obtained in a laboratory test and performance variables obtained in the Cooper field test. Twenty-three participants (age: 41.6 ± 7.6 years, weight: 70.4 ± 8.1 kg, and height: 172.5 ± 6.3 cm) underwent body composition assessment and performed a maximum incremental graded exercise laboratory test to evaluate maximum aerobic power and associated cardiorespiratory and metabolic variables. Cooper's original protocol was performed on an athletic track and the variables recorded were covered distance, rating of perceived exertion, and maximum heart rate. The week following the Cooper test, all participants completed a half-marathon race at the maximum possible speed. The associations between the laboratory and field tests and the final time of the test were used to select the predictive variables included in a stepwise multiple regression analysis, which used the race time in the half marathon as the dependent variable and the laboratory variables or field tests as independent variables. Subsequently, a concordance analysis was carried out between the estimated and actual times through the Bland-Altman procedure. Significant correlations were found between the time in the half marathon and the distance in the Cooper test (r = -0.93; p < 0.001), body weight (r = 0.40; p < 0.04), velocity at ventilatory threshold 1, (r = -0.72; p < 0.0001), speed reached at maximum oxygen consumption (vVO$_{2}$max), (r = -0.84; p < 0.0001), oxygen consumption at ventilatory threshold 2 (VO$_{2}$VT2) (r = -0.79; p < 0.0001), and VO$_{2}$max (r = -0.64; p < 0.05). The distance covered in the Cooper test was the best predictor of time in the half-marathon, and might predicted by the equation: Race time (min) = 201.26 - 0.03433 (Cooper test in m) (R$^{2}$ = 0.873, SEE: 3.78 min). In the laboratory model, vVO2max, and body weight presented an R$^{2}$ = 0.77, SEE 5.28 min. predicted by equation: Race time (min) = 156.7177 - 4.7194 (vVO$_{2}$max) - 0.3435 (Weight). Concordance analysis showed no differences between the times predicted in the models the and actual times. The data indicated a high predictive power of half marathon race time both from the distance in the Cooper test and vVO2max in the laboratory. However, the variable associated with the Cooper test had better predictive ability than the treadmill test variables. Finally, it is important to note that these data may only be extrapolated to recreational male runners.

## Statistics

### Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

### Downloads

11 downloads since deposited on 13 Jan 2020
9 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

## Additional indexing

Item Type: Journal Article, refereed, original work 04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of General Practice 610 Medicine & health Life Sciences > Physiology Health Sciences > Physiology (medical) English 2019 13 Jan 2020 09:03 11 May 2020 19:20 Frontiers Research Foundation 1664-042X Gold PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01349 31749711

## Download

Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 540kB
View at publisher
Licence: