RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effects of load carriage on physiological
determinants in adventure racers
Alex de O. Fagundes1, Elren P. Monteiro1,2, Leandro T. Franzoni1, Bruna S. Fraga1,
Patrı´cia D. Pantoja1, Gabriela Fischer1,3, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga1,4*
1 Exercise Research Laboratory, Escola de Educac¸ão Fı´sica, Fisioterapia e Danc¸a, Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2 Neurosciences and Rehabilitation Laboratory,
Universidade Federal de Ciências da Sau´de de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil,
3 Centro de Desportos, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Floriano´polis, Brazil, 4 Post-Graduation in
Pulmonology Science, Hospital de Clı´nicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil
* leonardo.tartaruga@ufrgs.br
Abstract
Adventure racing athletes need run carrying loads during the race. A better understanding
of how different loads influence physiological determinants in adventure racers could pro-
vide useful insights to gauge training interventions to improve running performance. We
compare the maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max), the cost of transport (C) and ventilatory
thresholds of twelve adventure running athletes at three load conditions: unloaded, 7 and
15% of body mass. Twelve healthy men experienced athletes of Adventure Racing (age
31.3 ± 7.7 years, height 1.81 ± 0.05 m, body mass 75.5 ± 9.1 kg) carried out three maximal
progressive (VO2max protocol) and three submaximal constant-load (running cost protocol)
tests, defined in the following quasi-randomized conditions: unloaded, 7% and, 15% of body
mass. The VO2max (unload: 59.7 ± 5.9; 7%: 61.7 ± 6.6 and 15%: 64.6 ± 5.4 ml kg-1 min-1)
did not change among the conditions. While the 7% condition does neither modify the C
nor the ventilatory thresholds, the 15% condition resulted in a higher C (5.2 ± 0.9 J kg-1 m-1;
P = 0.001; d = 1.48) than the unloaded condition (4.0 ± 0.7 J kg-1 m-1). First ventilatory
threshold was greater at 15% than control condition (+15.5%; P = 0.003; d = 1.44). Interest-
ingly, the velocities on the severe-intensity domain (between second ventilatory threshold
and VO2max) were reduced 1% equivalently to 1% increasing load (relative to body mass).
The loading until 15% of body mass seems to affect partially the crucial metabolic and venti-
latory parameters, specifically the C but not the VO2max. These findings are compatible
with the concept that interventions that enhance running economy with loads may improve
the running performance of adventure racing’s athletes.
Introduction
The adventure racing (AR) consists of a multi-sports modality involving running, mountain-
bike, canoeing, vertical techniques, and others. During the event, the athletes carry back-
packs of different weights (5–10 kg), including obligatory equipment, in distances varying
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
1 / 13
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Fagundes AdO, Monteiro EP, Franzoni LT,
Fraga BS, Pantoja PD, Fischer G, et al. (2017)
Effects of load carriage on physiological
determinants in adventure racers. PLoS ONE 12
(12): e0189516. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0189516
Editor: Luca Paolo Ardigò, Universita degli Studi di
Verona, ITALY
Received: October 11, 2017
Accepted: November 28, 2017
Published: December 7, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Fagundes et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: This work was supported by the Brazilian
Research Council – CNPq under Grant number
483510/2013 and 422193/2016-0; and LAPEX
under Grant number 29/2015. The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
about 20–100 km. Despite the increasing popularity, few studies have analyzed the crucial
aspects related to training workload and running performance with loads in these athletes
[1].
The load carrying induces to a higher cost of transport (C) or energy cost, i.e., the energy
spent per unit distance covered [2] in comparison to unload condition. However, when the
C is scaled linearly to total mass (extra + body mass) no differences, and even reductions in
energy expenditure with low loads are found [3, 4]. Possibly, the elastic mechanism is opti-
mized for the loaded running [3]. However, metabolic data in maximal situations or at anaero-
bic threshold remain unknown.
The nutritional aspects, on the other hand, are extensively studied in AR due to its very
demanding characteristic from the energetic point of view. A severe negative energetic balance
in AR may produce adverse effects on immunological [5], renal [6], and muscular [7] systems.
In fact, progressive intensive protein depletion has been verified during adventure races [7]
accompanied by a negative energetic balance [8, 9]. Thus, the relevance of knowledge on meta-
bolic requirements using loads has been discussed due to the evident impact on the energetic
balance of these athletes [5–9].
The determination of intensities corresponding to certain metabolic domains is useful
when planning and applying interval and continuous training methods. As for speed and dis-
tance, the load carriage would be a factor that affects the metabolic intensity domains. For
example, when progressive load-carriage exercise is part of the training program, much larger
training effects are evident than aerobic training alone [10, 11]. To the best of our knowledge,
evidence-based recommendations for running training with loads are not established for AR
participants.
Therefore, to date, little is still known about the C and ventilatory thresholds in the specific
context of trained adventure athletes. We hypothesized that the differences in the submaximal
intensities would be more noticeable with 15% load than 7%, due to energy-saving mechanism
acting at low loads as previously shown [3]. Using a laboratory-based measures, we addressed
two main research questions: i) is there an effect of load carriage on running maximum oxygen
uptake (VO2max), ventilatory thresholds and C in AR athletes? ii) If loads affect these vari-
ables, is it possible to define predictive equations to estimate the crucial training intensity
markers based on extra load?
Materials and methods
Participants
Based on a minimum increase in C of 5% (~0.3 J kg-1 m-1), a coefficient of variation of 5%, an
alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 90%, the minimal number of athletes required for the group
was 11. Twelve healthy men, who were national level athletes of AR (age 31.3 ± 7.7 years,
height 1.81 ± 0.05 m, body mass 75.5 ± 9.1 kg, training volume 39.12 ± 9.02 km per week, AR
experience 64 ± 49 months), carried out three maximal progressive (VO2max protocol) and
three submaximal constant-load (running cost protocol) tests, defined in the following quasi-
randomized conditions: unloaded, 7% and, 15% of body mass. We choose percent loads due to
inherent effects of absolute load on performance. Also, we settle these percent loads because
are the loads usually used in AR [11]. All participants gave their written informed consent to
participate in the study. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards
and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008, and were approved by the
responsible local Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on
human experimentation.
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
2 / 13
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Experimental design
During the preliminary visit, athletes were familiarized with all loads, equipment, and proto-
cols. All tests were separated by about 2–4 days. Firstly, the three maximal running tests at 0,
7% and 15% of individuals’ body mass were randomized in three visits and, in the fourth visit,
the submaximal tests were again randomized. The athletes used their backpacks to perform
the bouts with the extra load. The backpack position was set between the first thoracic and
lumbar vertebra, and it was fixed to avoid excessive oscillation (Fig 1). In all tests, the heart
rate (Polar, Kempele, Finland), end-tidal partial pressure of oxygen, end-tidal partial pressure
of carbon dioxide, oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide output and ventilation per minute (MED-
GRAPHICS, CPX/D, Diagnostic Systems, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) were measured contin-
uously. The gas data were registered breath-by-breath. Temperature, atmospheric pressure
and humidity in the laboratory were 20 ± 2˚C, 1026 ± 10 mmHg, and 50 ± 8%, respectively.
6–20 Borg’s ratings of perceived exertion scale (RPE) was shown to the athletes during the
last 30 s of each stage (maximal tests) and just after the end of submaximal tests. Each athlete
received detailed instructions about the use of the scale before the beginning of the first test.
The total time at each maximal test was 30 minutes, and 1 hour to the submaximal protocol.
Maximal test. Before the trials, the athletes performed a warm-up walking on a treadmill
(QUINTON, ST55, New York, USA) inclined at 1% for five minutes at 6.0 km h-1 [12]. During
the warm-up before the tests with load, the backpack with the respective load (7 or 15% of
body mass) was adjusted. They were familiarized to treadmill exercise. The initial speed of the
maximal tests was 6.0 km h-1, and the increment was 1.0 km h-1 per minute until subjects
reached volitional exhaustion.
Submaximal tests.
Initially, resting oxygen uptake was measured in orthostasis, during 5
min. The individuals were asked to carry-out a warm-up for five minutes walking on a tread-
mill. Taking into account the individual outcomes from maximal tests, the athletes carried out
the submaximal tests at the intensity associated with 10% below the second ventilatory thresh-
old according to the respective condition (0%, 7%, and 15% of the individual’s body mass), all
on the same day. The duration of each test was 6 min. On average, 10 minutes of rest between
submaximal tests were enough to achieve the initial heart rate and oxygen consumption. The
rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured continuously
during each trial. The heart rate in all submaximal tests was not greater than 80 percent of the
maximal heart rate. Besides, the respiratory exchange ratio was also monitored achieving val-
ues lower than one.
Data analysis
Maximal tests.
The VO2max, the velocity associated with VO2max (vVO2max), maximal
RER, maximal heart rate, first and second ventilatory thresholds, and velocity associated with
first and second ventilatory thresholds (v1Tvent and v2Tvent, respectively) were determined
using computerized indirect calorimetry system [13].
The highest average of five oxygen consumption values was interpreted as the VO2max
[14]. The value was considered valid when, at least, one of following criteria was observed: i)
estimated maximal heart rate; ii) plateau on oxygen consumption with concomitant increase
in the speed (all subjects attained the true VO2max); iii) respiratory exchange ratio greater
than 1.1; iv) rating of perceived exertion greater than 17 (very hard) relative to Borg scale.
The first and second ventilatory thresholds were determined according to the method pro-
posed by [15]. The first ventilatory threshold (also denominated as individual ventilatory
threshold) was determined from the first increase in ventilation-minute with a rapid rise in the
ventilatory equivalent of oxygen consumption with no concomitant increase in the ventilatory
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
3 / 13
Fig 1. The athlete and his backpack with the extra load.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516.g001
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
4 / 13
equivalent of carbon dioxide production curve. The second ventilatory threshold (also denom-
inated as respiratory compensation point) was defined as follows: i) a systematic increase in
the ventilatory equivalent of oxygen consumption; ii) a concomitant nonlinear increase in the
ventilatory equivalent of carbon dioxide production; and iii) a reduction in the difference in
the inspired and end-tidal oxygen pressure. The ventilatory thresholds were determined in a
blinded way by two independent evaluators.
Submaximal tests.
The submaximal oxygen uptake and heart rate were averaged from the
last 60 s of the test [16]. The running economy was denoted by C, expressed in J kg-1 m-1. For
that, we divided the net metabolic rate (gross—stand metabolic rate) by speed and we con-
verted oxygen in ml to Joules relative to combustion enthalpy of substrates resulting from oxi-
dation observed indirectly from respiratory exchange ratio [17]. The metabolic rate (ECO) was
also calculated and expressed in ml kg-1 min-1.
The maximal and submaximal metabolic power values were normalized to body mass
and expressed in ml kg-1 min-1. Recently, we showed that the relationship between metabolic
parameters and performance is independent of how the parameters are relativized in runners
[18–20]. All data can be seen in the supplementary material (S1 Table).
Statistics
The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify data normality. We performed the descriptive statis-
tics calculating mean ± standard deviation. The Pearson product-moment correlation test was
carried out in order to test the relationship among the physiological determinants of perfor-
mance (VO2max, C and, ventilatory threshold) with different load conditions. The linear
regression analysis was used to estimate the speeds associated empirically with ventilatory
thresholds when carrying loads. Possible differences between conditions (0, 7 and 15% of body
mass) were analyzed using the repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonfer-
roni post hoc test. To verify the possibility of violation of the assumption of sphericity, we
applied the Mauchly test using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction for all analyses. Significance
was accepted at P  0.05, statistical power was 90%, and the analyses were performed in Statis-
tical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA). We used the
Cohen’s d coefficient to determine the effect sizes [21]. We determined the differences in pro-
portions using the rule of thumb criteria set out by Hopkins: trivial (< 0.2), small (0.2–0.6),
moderate (0.6–1.2), or large (> 1.2).
Results
The physiological data are presented in Table 1. The average for 7 and 15% loads carried in
the maximal and submaximal tests were 5.29, s = 0.64 kg and 11.33, s = 1.37 kg, respectively.
ANOVA showed a general effect of load on vVO2max (P = 0.005, Fig 2B), which decreased
13% between 0 and 15% load. Despite no significant statistical differences among VO2max val-
ues (Fig 2A), a large effect size (0.86) was observed between 0 and 15% load.
First ventilatory threshold values significantly increased (P = 0.003) while the velocity asso-
ciated, v1Tvent, did not differ among loads (P = 0.287, Fig 2C). On the contrary, second venti-
latory threshold values were similar (P = 0.140) while the v2Tvent decreased 13.5% (P = 0.005,
Fig 2D), as observed for the vVO2max. Heart rate, rating of perceived exertion at first and sec-
ond ventilatory threshold, and VO2max did not differ (P > 0.05) among load conditions
(Table 1). In contrast, C resulted to be significantly greater (+30%; P = 0.001; d = 1.48) at 15%
load and greater (+13%; P = 0.115; d = 0.85) at 7% load compared to the unloaded running
submaximal test (Fig 3).
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
5 / 13
A significant moderate correlation was observed between the second ventilatory threshold
and VO2max (r = 0.74, P <0.05, Fig 4C). Interestingly, the extra-cost (the metabolic cost to
transport the backpack) seems to be a function of backpack weight (r = 0.78, P <0.05, Fig 4D).
We estimated the relative intensity of training (reduction on v1Tvent, v2Tvent, and vVO2-
max due to load carriage) by the linear regression model. The linear regression between reduc-
tion of the v1Tvent and load was weak and non significant (r2 = 0.05; P >0.05). On the other
hand, the estimation of the reduction of the vVO2max (in km h-1) and v2Tvent in function
of load carriage were as follows: vVO2max (load, kg) = -0.1932 x load– 0.1523 (r2 = 0.54;
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, ANOVA, post hoc (Bonferroni) and Cohen’s d effect size results from maximal (VO2max protocol) and submax-
imal (running cost protocol) tests. Numbers in bold represent P < 0.05.
0%
7%
15%
ANOVA
Bonferroni (effect size)
F
P
P
0–7%
P
0–15%
P
7–15%
Load (kg)
--
5.3 ± 0.6
11.3 ± 1.4
VO2max protocol data
VO2max (ml kg-1 min-1)
59.7 ± 5.9
61.7 ± 6.6
64.6 ± 5.4
2.05
0.144
0.999 (0.31)
0.156 (0.86)
0.714 (0.48)
HRmax (bpm)
183 ± 9
181 ± 8
181 ± 12
0.15
0.863
0.999 (0.23)
0.999 (0.18)
0.999 (0.00)
vVO2max (km h-1)
18.0 ± 1.7
16.7 ± 1.6
15.7 ± 1.6
6.36
0.005
0.151 (0.78)
0.003 (1.39)
0.412 (0.62)
RERmax
1.14 ± 0.07
1.13 ± 0.09
1.15 ± 0.10
0.24
0.790
0.999 (0.12)
0.999 (0.11)
0.999 (0.21)
1Tvent (ml kg-1 min-1)
33.2 ± 3.8
37.5 ± 4.1
39.3 ± 4.6
6.75
0.003
0.050 (1.08)
0.003 (1.44)
0.904 (0.41)
2Tvent (ml kg-1 min-1)
51.8 ± 4.3
55.5 ± 6.3
56.5 ± 6.9
2.07
0.140
0.425 (0.68)
0.184 (0.81)
0.999 (0.15)
v1Tvent (km h-1)
9.0 ± 0.9
8.5 ± 0.8
8.6 ± 0.7
1.30
0.287
0.427 (0.58)
0.656 (0.49)
0.999 (0.13)
v2Tvent (km h-1)
14.8 ± 1.4
13.7 ± 1.4
12.8 ± 1.2
6.24
0.005
0.164 (0.78)
0.004 (1.53)
0.405 (0.69)
1Tvent% (%)
55.8 ± 5.9
61.1 ± 6.5
60.8 ± 5.9
0.68
0.514
0.861 (0.85)
0.999 (0.84)
0.999 (0.04)
2Tvent% (%)
87.1 ± 5.3
90.0 ± 5.3
87.5 ± 8.3
2.85
0.072
0.127 (0.54)
0.156 (0.05)
0.999 (0.35)
v1Tvent% (%)
50.2 ± 5.4
51.3 ± 6.1
55.0 ± 4.3
2.72
0.081
0.999 (0.19)
0.098 (0.98)
0.290 (0.70)
v2Tvent% (%)
82.2 ± 6.4
82.4 ± 9.1
82.3 ± 7.8
0.01
0.998
0.999 (0.02)
0.999 (0.01)
0.999 (0.01)
HR at 1Tvent (bpm)
127 ± 12
130 ± 13
132 ± 15
0.54
0.585
0.999 (0.23)
0.930 (0.36)
0.999 (0.14)
HR at 2Tvent (bpm)
167 ± 13
167 ± 10
166 ± 12
0.01
0.989
0.999 (0.00)
0.999 (0.07)
0.999 (0.09)
RPE at 1Tvent
9.2 ± 1.2
9.1 ± 0.9
9.9 ± 1.6
1.62
0.213
0.999 (0.09)
0.453 (0.49)
0.335 (0.61)
RPE at 2Tvent
14.7 ± 2.1
13.9 ± 2.5
14.4 ± 2.6
0.36
0.701
0.999 (0.34)
0.999 (0.12)
0.999 (0.19)
RPE at VO2max
18.7 ±1.5
18.2 ± 1.3
18.4 ± 1.4
0.51
0.607
0.968 (0.35)
0.999 (0.20)
0.999 (0.14)
Running cost protocol data
ECO (ml kg-1 min-1)
42.1 ± 6.0
45.3 ± 6.7
48.1 ± 9.7
1.87
0.170
0.941 (0.50)
0.186 (0.74)
0.999 (0.33)
C (J kg-1 m-1)
4.0 ± 0.7
4.6 ± 0.7
5.2 ± 0.9
7.97
0.001
0.115 (0.85)
0.001 (1.48)
0.229 (0.74)
Speed (km h-1)
13.3 ± 1.2
12.3 ± 1.3
11.5 ± 1.1
1.98
0.154
0.185 (0.79)
0.530 (1.56)
0.999 (0.66)
ECO% (%)
76 ± 8
80 ± 12
78 ± 11
0.32
0.725
0.999 (0.39)
0.999 (0.20)
0.99 (0.17)
HR_ECO (bpm)
162 ± 15
161 ± 16
158 ± 15
0.17
0.846
0.999 (0.06)
0.999 (0.26)
0.999 (0.19)
RPE_ECO
11.0 ± 2.0
11.6 ± 2.0
11.8 ± 1.9
0.66
0.525
0.999 (0.29)
0.842 (0.41)
0.999 (0.10)
Note: VO2max: maximal oxygen consumption; HRmax: maximal heart rate; RERmax: maximal respiratory exchange ratio; vVO2max: velocity at VO2max;
1Tvent: first ventilatory threshold; 2Tvent: second ventilatory threshold; v1Tvent: velocity at first ventilatory threshold; v2Tvent: velocity at second
ventilatory threshold; 1Tvent%: percent first ventilatory threshold; 2Tvent%: percent second ventilatory threshold; v1Tvent%: percent velocity associated
with first ventilatory threshold; v2Tvent%: percent velocity associated with second ventilatory threshold; HR at 1Tvent: heart rate at first ventilatory
threshold; HR at 2Tvent: heart rate at second ventilatory threshold; RPE at 1Tvent: rating of perceived exertion at first ventilatory threshold; RPE at 2Tvent:
rating of perceived exertion at second ventilatory threshold; and RPE at VO2max: rating of perceived exertion at maximal oxygen consumption. ECO:
metabolic rate; C: cost of transport; ECO%: percent metabolic rate; HR_ECO: heart rate during submaximal test; RPE_ECO: rating of perceived exertion
during submaximal test.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516.t001
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
6 / 13
P < 0.05; SEE = 0.2186 km h-1); v2Tvent (load, kg) = -0.1676 x load– 0.1549 (r2 = 0.68; P <0.05,
SEE = 0.1422 km h-1).
Discussion
Our first and most important research question was to determine whether there is an effect of
load carriage on running VO2max, ventilatory thresholds, and C in experienced athletes of
AR. We found that VO2max and second ventilatory threshold were affected similarly, that is,
values reached were similar while the velocities associated were significantly reduced. We also
accepted our hypothesis that adventure racers have higher differences in the C when carrying
loads of 15% than 7% of body mass in comparison to the unloaded condition. Our second
research question was related to testing predictive equations to estimate specific training inten-
sity for adventure racers from the loads used. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study investigating the effects of load carriage on running VO2max, C and ventilatory thresh-
old in adventure racers.
About the method
What remains to be established is how much of the reduction in velocity is related to load car-
riage and whether a similar reduction also carries out with different intensities. These are
important issues given that loaded running may play a role in a substantial proportion of meta-
bolic requirements during the AR. To address these questions, we chose to focus on backpack
Fig 2. Mean and standard deviation of VO2max (A), velocities associated with VO2max (vVO2max, B), first (v1Tvent, C) and second (v2Tvent,
D) ventilatory thresholds at different conditions (0%: unloaded; 7% of body mass; and 15% of body mass). P’s and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are
also presented.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516.g002
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
7 / 13
weights of 7 and 15 percent of body mass as these loads are frequent in adventure races [18].
As the individual speed is critical to organizing the strategy of AR teams [22], we chose to esti-
mate the velocities associated with different performance threshold.
Physiological meaning of findings
The adventure racers’ v1Tvent did not change carrying loads until 15% of body mass, but the
metabolic rate expended at that level was increased with loading condition. One possible
explanation refers to the reduced running economy (C) at similar intensity found out in our
study. Also, on the other hand, maintain the v1Tvent even with a higher oxygen consumption
may be related to the intensity frequently used for these athletes in their races (120–130 bpm
Fig 3. Cost of transport per athlete (black lines) and the average value (gray double line) at unloaded condition (0), carrying loads of 7 and 15%
of body mass.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516.g003
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
8 / 13
[8]), close to the heart rate at first ventilatory threshold found here (127–132 bpm at first venti-
latory threshold). The maximal heart rate, respiratory exchange ratio and rating of perceived
exertion were not modified in the different conditions due to the substantial reduction in the
vVO2max, which is in line with previous studies [23, 24].
At higher intensities, the vVO2max and v2Tvent were reduced as expected. We speculated
that performance at the severe intensity domain was not worsened due to an optimization in
the elastic bouncing of running. Since the total load is a crucial factor to explain the higher effi-
ciency in larger animals due to minor hysteresis loss [25], we suggest that when using back-
packs, the adventure racers have the muscle-tendon unities more loaded showing also the
landing-takeoff asymmetry more elastic as recently proposed [26]. Direct evidence of animal
studies [27] and indirect evidence in humans [3] support this hypothesis. Nevertheless,
although we have measured the cost of carrying loads during locomotion, the function of the
muscle-tendon unit cannot be ascertained in this study. Thus, the added mechanical work due
to elastic bouncing with loads remains unknown, and the potential impact of loading at the
level of muscle-tendon units requires further research.
In our study, C increased with the extra load. However, the effects of load on the C in the
scientific literature are inconclusive [3, 4, 18]. There are methodological differences in the
studies mentioned above that might partly explain different findings. One important issue
refers to the way of expressing the energy expenditure, especially concerning the mass
Fig 4. Scatterplot between physiological variables (n = 12 subjects). A) The cost of transport in function of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max)
and, B) in function of second ventilatory threshold (2Tvent). C) The 2Tvent in function of VO2max. D) The metabolic cost of load (load cost = loaded
−unloaded) in function of absolute load in kg.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516.g004
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
9 / 13
normalization. In the studies where the economy increased with load (e.g., Abe et al. [3]), the
metabolic value was normalized to total mass. This procedure does not permit assessing the
economy mainly related to muscles involved in the movement [2].
The ventilatory thresholds are considered good predictors of long-distance running perfor-
mance [15]. In the current study, the athletes obtained moderate to high velocities [28] associ-
ated with the second ventilatory threshold (0% = 14.8, s = 1.4 km h-1; 7% = 13.7, s = 1.4 km h-1;
15% = 12.8, s = 1.2 km h-1). The second ventilatory threshold expressed as a percentage of
VO2max were in the range of 87–90% VO2max. These results demonstrate that the athletes
are aerobically well trained. Again, we explore the effects of velocities associated with the venti-
latory threshold, and these determinations may be useful to plan training programs in order
not just to maximize physiological adaptations but also to reduce the probability of susceptibil-
ity to overreaching and overtraining in this sport [29, 30]. From a practical point-of-view, this
study provides an interesting outcome related to the one-to-one percent ratio between running
velocity and extra-load (as a percentage of body mass) in the severe domain. In other words,
the athlete of AR needs to pay attention that to each percent of the increase in the backpack’s
load, the speed needs to be reduced at the same percentage, to maintain the same metabolic
rate. These findings suggest that interventions that enhance the running economy (for exam-
ple, strength training) may increase the athletes’ performance of AR.
Predictive equations
Specifically, our predictive equations offer a valuable tool to control the training intensity
when the load is manipulated. The average reductions of the velocities associated with
VO2max due to increasing load were 8 and 15% (for 7 and 15% load, respectively), and of the
velocities associated with second ventilatory threshold were 10 and 15%. Interestingly, these
average values indicate a constant ratio equal to one between the percent velocity reduction
(due to loading) and the percent load increase. Stated in other terms, 1% of load increase
(relative to body mass) is equivalent to 1% of velocity reduction (relative to running velocity
without extra load). This relationship seems to be constant only on severe intensity domain,
between the second ventilatory threshold and VO2max.
Although it produces only empirical predictive equations, this approach is biologically
meaningful and provides a useful framework for planning and developing specific training
models to adventure racers. Furthermore, many attempts of estimating the ventilatory thresh-
old parameters were not successful in the literature, showing an underestimation in a broad
sample of endurance athletes (141 subjects, but taking part 8 adventure racers only). And,
when validated, these equations are neither specific to AR [31] nor taking into account the
loaded conditions [28, 32].
The experimental protocol we undertook has limitations that must be discussed. The load
position is a crucial variable of C, and we used only loads on the shoulders. Although loading
subjects on their shoulders had a greater negative impact on C than placing the extra load
around their waists [18], backpacks are the typical way of carrying the load in AR. One
important limitation is about the time-dependent effects of load on physiological parameters
studied here. The adventure races are performed during 4–5 days. Therefore, the mitochon-
drial function is deteriorated during the race [5], probably intensifying the negative effects of
load on C.
Moreover, the heart rate is qualitatively reduced in the second half of races [8]. These differ-
ences show that our results are limited to regular training and race’ starting phases. Future
work can use this original study as an important starting point in the quest to improve our
understanding of the physiological adaptations to specific training by using loads and their
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
10 / 13
repercussions on race performance. We also suggest future studies analyzing running’s bio-
mechanical alterations (stride length and frequency) under different loads in AR athletes.
The results of the present study showed collectively the preservation of running primary
physiological parameters of adventure racers using loads, specifically, demonstrating the main-
tenance of VO2max, C (at 7% of body mass) and second ventilatory threshold, and the increase
of the first ventilatory threshold (interestingly without differences in the v1Tvent). The meta-
bolic cost of transporting 1 kilogram of body mass per meter of running (C) was impaired
with 15% load only.
Conclusion
The most striking findings of this cross-sectional study are as follows: (i) The VO2max and
second ventilatory threshold remain unchanged, and the responses of first ventilatory thresh-
old and C were greater at 15% of body mass in comparison to unloaded condition; (ii) at severe
metabolic domain (from second ventilatory threshold to VO2max), the iso-metabolic speeds
were reduced 1% equivalently to 1% increasing load (relative to body mass); (iii) the C of carry-
ing 7% and 15% (of body mass) loads for AR athletes are 4.6 J kg-1 m-1 (1.10 cal kg-1 m-1) and
5.2 J kg-1 m-1 (1.24 cal kg-1 m-1), respectively; and for the unloaded condition, the C is 4.0 J
kg-1 m-1 (0.96 cal kg-1 m-1).
Moreover, the regression model presented here is convenient for field use by adventure rac-
ers, as it requires only the information of the load carried on backpacks. These findings could
be further used to optimize the performance of these athletes by individualizing training inten-
sities related to load carriage.
Supporting information
S1 Table. General dataset.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Locomotion Group of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul for
discussions and comments. L.A. Peyre´-Tartaruga is an established investigator of the Brazilian
Research Council—CNPq, Brası´lia, Brazil.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Alex de O. Fagundes, Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Data curation: Alex de O. Fagundes, Elren P. Monteiro, Leandro T. Franzoni, Bruna S. Fraga,
Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Formal analysis: Alex de O. Fagundes, Elren P. Monteiro, Leandro T. Franzoni, Bruna S.
Fraga, Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Funding acquisition: Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Investigation: Alex de O. Fagundes, Elren P. Monteiro, Leandro T. Franzoni, Bruna S. Fraga,
Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Methodology: Alex de O. Fagundes, Elren P. Monteiro, Leandro T. Franzoni, Bruna S. Fraga,
Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Project administration: Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
11 / 13
Resources: Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Software: Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Supervision: Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
Writing – original draft: Alex de O. Fagundes, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-
Tartaruga.
Writing – review & editing: Alex de O. Fagundes, Elren P. Monteiro, Leandro T. Franzoni,
Bruna S. Fraga, Patrı´cia D. Pantoja, Gabriela Fischer, Leonardo A. Peyre´-Tartaruga.
References
1.
Simpson D, Post PG, Tashman LS. Adventure racing: The experiences of participants in the everglades
challenge. J Humanist Psychol. 2015; 54, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167813482188
2.
Saibene F, Minetti AE. Biomechanical and physiological aspects of legged locomotion in humans. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2003; 88, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0654-9 PMID: 12527959
3.
Abe D, Fukuoka Y, Muraki S, Yasukouchi A, Sakaguchi Y, Niihata S. Effects of load and gradient on
energy cost of running. J Physiol Anthropol. 2011; 30, 153–60. https://doi.org/10.2114/jpa2.30.153
PMID: 21804298
4.
Bourdin M, Belli A, Arsac LM, Bosco C, Lacour JR. Effect of vertical loading on energy cost and kine-
matics of running in trained male subjects. J Appl Physiol. 1995; 79, 2078–2085. PMID: 8847276
5.
Levada-Pires AC, Fonseca CER, Hatanaka E, Alba-Loureiro T, Velhote FB, Curi R, et al. The effect of
an adventure race on lymphocyte and neutrophil death. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 109, 447–453. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1363-4 PMID: 20143084
6.
Bowen RL, Adams JH, Myburgh KH. Nausea and high serum osmolality during a simulated ultraendur-
ance adventure race: a case-control study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006; 1, 176–185. PMID:
19114751
7.
Borgenvik M, Nordin M, Mattsson CM, Enqvist JK, Blomstrand E, Ekblom B. Alterations in amino acid
concentrations in the plasma and muscle in human subjects during 24 h of simulated adventure racing.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012; 112, 3679–3688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2350-8 PMID:
22350359
8.
Enqvist JK, Mattsson CM, Johansson PH, Brink-Elfegoun T, Bakkman L, Ekblom BT. Energy turnover
during 24 hours and 6 days of adventure racing. J Sports Sci. 2010; 28, 947–955. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640411003734069 PMID: 20544486
9.
Zalcman I, Guarita HV, Juzwiak CR, Crispim CA, Antunes HKM, Edwards B, et al. Nutritional status of
adventure racers. Nutr. 2007; 23, 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2007.01.001 PMID: 17383160
10.
Knapik JJ, Harman EA, Steelman RA, Graham BS. A systematic review of the effects of physical train-
ing on load carriage performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26, 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3182429853 PMID: 22130400
11.
Solomonson AA, Dicks ND, Kerr WJ, Pettitt RW. Influence of Load Carriage on High-Intensity Running
Performance Estimation. J Strength Cond Res. 2016; 30, 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000001209 PMID: 26422613
12.
Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor run-
ning. J Sports Sci. 1996; 14, 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419608727717 PMID: 8887211
13.
Sun XG, Hansen JE, Garatachea N, Storer TW, Wasserman K. Ventilatory efficiency during exercise in
healthy subjects. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2002; 166, 1443–1448. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.
2202033 PMID: 12450934
14.
Ribeiro JP, Hughes V, Fielding RA, Holden W, Evans W, Knuttgen HG. Metabolic and ventilatory
responses to steady state exercise relative to lactate thresholds. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1986; 55, 215–221. PMID: 3699010
15.
Wasserman K, Whipp BJ, Koyl SN, Beaver WL. Anaerobic threshold and respiratory gas exchange dur-
ing exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1973; 35, 236–243. PMID: 4723033
16.
Shaw AJ, Ingham SA, Folland JP. The valid measurement of running economy in runners. Med Sci
Sports Exer. 2014; 46, 1968–1973. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000311 PMID: 24561819
17.
Pe´ronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Appl Physiol.
1991; 16, 23–29.
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
12 / 13
18.
Pedersen AV, Stokke R, Mamen A. Effects of extra load position on energy expenditure in treadmill run-
ning. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007; 102, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-007-0553-1 PMID:
17874122
19.
Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Factors affecting running economy in trained distance
runners. Sports Med. 2004; 34, 465–485. PMID: 15233599
20.
Tartaruga MP, Mota CB, Peyre´-Tartaruga LA, Brisswalter J. Scale model on performance prediction in
recreational and elite endurance runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014; 9, 650–655. https://doi.
org/10.1123/ijspp.2013-0165 PMID: 24231578
21.
Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and
exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41, 3. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
PMID: 19092709
22.
Lipman GS, Ellis MA, Lewis EJ, Waite BL, Lissoway J, Chan GK, et al. A prospective randomized blister
prevention trial assessing paper tape in endurance distances (Pre-TAPED). Wilderness Environ Med.
2014; 25, 457–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2014.06.013 PMID: 25443754
23.
Fletcher JR, Esau SP, MacIntosh BR. Economy of running: beyond the measurement of oxygen uptake.
J Appl Physiol. 2009; 107, 1918–1922. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2009 PMID:
19833811
24.
Lucas SJ, Anglem N, Roberts WS, Anson JG, Palmer CD, Walker RJ, et al. Intensity and physiological
strain of competitive ultra-endurance exercise in humans. J Sports Sci. 2008; 26, 477–489. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02640410701552872 PMID: 18274945
25.
Cavagna GA, Legramandi MA. Running, hopping and trotting: tuning step frequency to the resonant fre-
quency of the bouncing system favors larger animals. JExp Biol. 2015; 218, 3276–3283. https://doi.org/
10.1242/jeb.127142 PMID: 26347555
26.
Cavagna GA. The two asymmetries of the bouncing step. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009; 107, 739. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1179-2 PMID: 19727798
27.
Baudinette RV, Biewener AA. Young wallabies get a free ride. Nature. 1998; 395, 653. https://doi.org/
10.1038/27111
28.
Malek MH, Housh TJ, Coburn JW, Schmidt RJ, Beck TW. Cross-validation of ventilatory threshold pre-
diction equations on aerobically trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21, 29–33.
https://doi.org/10.1519/R-19135.1 PMID: 17313275
29.
Anglem N, Lucas SJ, Rose EA, Cotter JD. Mood, illness and injury responses and recovery with adven-
ture racing. Wilderness Environ Med. 2008; 19, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1580/07-WEME-OR-091.1
PMID: 18333663
30.
Fordham S, Garbutt G, Lopes P. Epidemiology of injuries in adventure racing athletes. Br J Sports Med.
2004; 38, 300–303. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2002.003350 PMID: 15155432
31.
Epstein Y, Stroschein LA, Pandolf KB. Predicting metabolic cost of running with and without backpack
loads. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1987; 56, 495–500. PMID: 3653088
32.
Malek MH, Coburn JW. A new ventilatory threshold equation for aerobically trained men and women.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2009; 29, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-097X.2008.00850.x
PMID: 19207417
Loaded running in adventure racing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189516
December 7, 2017
13 / 13

Effects of load carriage on physiological determinants in adventure racers.
Fagundes, Alex de O,Monteiro, Elren P,Franzoni, Leandro T,Fraga, Bruna S,Pantoja, Patrícia D,Fischer, Gabriela,Peyré-Tartaruga, Leonardo A