Changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in response to endurance training (ET) exhibit large variations, possibly due to a multitude of biological and methodological factors. It is acknowledged that ∼20% of individuals may not achieve meaningful increases in CRF in response to ET. Genetics, the most potent biological contributor, has been shown to explain ∼50% of response variability, whilst age, sex and baseline CRF appear to explain a smaller proportion. Methodological factors represent the characteristics of the ET itself, including the type, volume and intensity of exercise, as well as the method used to prescribe and control exercise intensity. Notably, methodological factors are modifiable and, upon manipulation, alter response rates to ET, eliciting increases in CRF regardless of an individual's biological predisposition.Particularly, prescribing exercise intensity relative to a physiological threshold (e.g., ventilatory threshold) is shown to increase CRF response rates compared to when intensity is anchored relative to a maximum physiological value (e.g., maximum heart rate). It is, however, uncertain whether the increased response rates are primarily attributable to reduced response variability, greater mean changes in CRF or both.Future research is warranted to elucidate whether more homogeneous chronic adaptations manifest over time among individuals, as a result of exposure to more homogeneous exercise stimuli elicited by threshold-based practices.

The objective of this study was to determine whether the variability in exercise tolerance and physiological responses is lower when exercise is prescribed relative to physiological thresholds (THR) compared to traditional intensity anchors (TRAD).Ten individuals completed a series of maximal exercise tests and a series of moderate (MOD), heavy (HVY) and severe intensity (HIIT) exercise bouts prescribed using THR intensity anchors (critical power and gas exchange threshold) and TRAD intensity anchors (maximum oxygen uptake; VO 2 max ). There were no differences in exercise tolerance or acute response variability between MOD THR and MOD TRAD . All individuals completed HVY THR but only 30% completed HVY TRAD . Compared to HVY THR , where work rates were all below critical power, work rates in HVY TRAD exceeded critical power in 70% of individuals. There was, however, no difference in acute response variability between HVY THR and HVY TRAD . All individuals completed HIIT THR but only 20% completed HIIT TRAD . The variability in peak (F = 0.274) and average (F = 0.318) blood lactate responses was lower in HIIT THR compared to HIIT TRAD . The variability in W′ depletion (the finite work capacity above critical power) after the final interval bout was lower in HIIT THR compared to HIIT TRAD (F = 0.305). Using physiological thresholds to prescribe exercise intensity reduced the heterogeneity in exercise tolerance and physiological responses to exercise spanning the boundary between the heavy and severe intensity domains. To increase the precision of exercise intensity prescription, it is recommended that, where possible, physiological thresholds are used in place of VO 2 max . K E Y W O R D Scritical power, exercise intensity, exercise prescription, interindividual differences INTRODUCTIONCardiorespiratory fitness, measured as maximum oxygen uptake ( VO 2 max ), is an important marker of both endurance performanceThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Aim This study characterised the decoupling of internal-to-external workload in marathon running and investigated whether decoupling magnitude and onset could improve predictions of marathon performance. Methods The decoupling of internal-to-external workload was calculated in 82,303 marathon runners (13,125 female). Internal workload was determined as a percentage of maximum heart rate, and external workload as speed relative to estimated critical speed (CS). Decoupling magnitude (i.e., decoupling in the 35–40 km segment relative to the 5–10 km segment) was classified as low (< 1.1), moderate (≥ 1.1 but < 1.2) or high (≥ 1.2). Decoupling onset was calculated when decoupling exceeded 1.025. Results The overall internal-to-external workload decoupling experienced was 1.16 ± 0.22, first detected 25.2 ± 9.9 km into marathon running. The low decoupling group (34.5% of runners) completed the marathon at a faster relative speed (88 ± 6% CS), had better marathon performance (217.3 ± 33.1 min), and first experienced decoupling later in the marathon (33.4 ± 9.0 km) compared to those in the moderate (32.7% of runners, 86 ± 6% CS, 224.9 ± 31.7 min, and 22.6 ± 7.7 km), and high decoupling groups (32.8% runners, 82 ± 7% CS, 238.5 ± 30.7 min, and 19.1 ± 6.8 km; all p < 0.01). Compared to females, males’ decoupling magnitude was greater (1.17 ± 0.22 vs. 1.12 ± 0.16; p < 0.01) and occurred earlier (25.0 ± 9.8 vs. 26.3 ± 10.6 km; p < 0.01). Marathon performance was associated with the magnitude and onset of decoupling, and when included in marathon performance models utilising CS and the curvature constant, prediction error was reduced from 6.45 to 5.16%. Conclusion Durability characteristics, assessed as internal-to-external workload ratio, show considerable inter-individual variability, and both its magnitude and onset are associated with marathon performance.

TO THE EDITOR: Podlogar et al. ( 1) have nicely discussed current methods for classifying athletes in applied physiology studies attending to their training or performance level. We agree with them that relying on a single physiological marker such as maximum oxygen uptake is not without limitations and endorse the use of more performance-based indicators. However, before proposing critical power/speed (CP/ CS) as the primary indicator of an athlete's training status, the robustness of these variables and the best method for their determination remains to be confirmed. Differences in mathematical models or test durations can indeed have a remarkable impact on an individual's CP/CS (e.g., up to $1 km/ h for CS in top-level runners) (2).More research is needed to provide reference or "normative" values of CP/CS allowing classification of athletes into different performance/fitness categories. An alternative, at least in cycling, might be classifying athletes attending to the highest power output that they can achieve for a given duration-the so-called "mean maximum power" (MMP) (3). This approach does not require the use of mathematical calculations or additional laboratory testing and is sensitive enough to allow discerning actual performance even between the two highest category levels-Union Cycliste Internationale [UCI] ProTeam versus UCI WorldTour-in professional cyclists (4). We have recently reported normative MMP values for male (n = 144) (4) and female professional cyclists (n = 44) (5). If a similar approach was used in cyclists of a lower training/competition level, scientists and coaches could accurately classify participants in cycling physiology studies.