## 1 Introduction  
Researchers and sports training professionals commonly seek to understand and optimize physical performance in athletes and recreational practitioners across different sports modalities [1; 2; 3; 4]. There is an understanding that the ability to increase our physical and competitive performance, in general, is dependent on and better explained by its determining variables [5; 6; 7]. In the case of long-distance running, economy of movement, a variable expressed by the balance between submaximal oxygen consumption and the energy expended at a given stable velocity, appears to be the most relevant component for sporting success [8; 9; 10; 11]. However, endurance or short-duration running also has a close relationship with the velocity indexes associated with the occurrence of VO2 Max [7], anaerobic energy pathways [12] and strength production capacity [13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19]. Strength training has been shown to be an effective strategy for improving running performance [20], and its effects seem better associated with neural adaptations than actual structural elements [9; 10; 11; 14]. Previous studies had already established the relationship between absolute maximum strength or strength relative to body mass with running performance, reinforcing the perspective of positive interference of muscular strength on aerobic performance, suggesting that the greater the external load-lifting capacity, the shorter the running time would be; however, sprinting skills were mainly analyzed [14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 21]. Determining how much maximum strength interferes with and explains variations in running performance, whether aerobic or anaerobic, although not a new subject, remains inconclusive, especially for endurance performance. Furthermore, we do not know whether the development of maximum strength would produce the same associations across different levels of physical capacity, which leads us to explore the topic from a new perspective. Movement professionals understand that strength is therefore a relevant element to include in a training program [20; 22]. Despite that, defining which exercise patterns would best associate with running performance still requires research. Historically, exercises with kinematic patterns involving simultaneous hip, knee and ankle extension, such as the squat (SQ) and its derivatives, with different manifestations of strength, are used as a predictive mechanism for running performance [13; 15; 16; 18; 19; 21; 23], explained mainly under movement mechanics analogous to running. On the other hand, based on the descriptive rationale of the movement and the specificity, other kinematically similar exercises, such as the deadlift (DL) movement, could demonstrate viability as a predictive strategy [24]. Although they are kinematically similar movements, particularities were observed when their kinetics were documented by [PERSON] et al. [25]. The authors demonstrate that the DL exercise presents a higher peak joint torque on the hip extensors compared to the squat (3.59 vs. 2.98 Nm\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), \(d\) = 0.81, \(p\) < 0.001), while the SQ exercise presents a higher peak joint moment on the knees (2.14 vs. 1.18 Nm\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), \(d\) = 1.44 \(p\) < 0.001) [25]. Despite this understanding, no study to date has established the associative capacity of DL to explain running performance, with only jumping performance being investigated [24], which requires analysis. Furthermore, understanding that both movements produce particular kinetics, but that they are commonly required in the running pattern, we speculate that the sum of the absolute external loads between DL and SQ could complement each other and better explain aerobic and anaerobic running performance; however, this perspective still requires investigation. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have developed and validated equations to estimate aerobic and anaerobic performance based on absolute and relative maximum strength.