88.4%EMG. Only running at 11 km/h leads to higher values rising up to 106.1%EMG. PFM EMG variables showed no systematic error (Friedman). They were low for SEM and MD, and ICC(3,1) were 0.75 and SEM (1.9–2.5%EMG for 7 km/h, 1.9–2.4%EMG for 9 km/h, 2.1–2.9%EMG for 11 km/h) and MD (5.2–7.0%EMG for 7 km/h, 5.4–6.6%EMG for 9 km/h, 5.9–8.0%EMG for 11 km/h) about 50% lower than for the single value model. Conclusion(s): The higher values of the variables during running at 11 km/h compared to the slower running speeds of 7 and 9 km/h could be the response to the higher ground reaction forces and therefore higher impacts causing higher PFM pre-activity and reflexivity during the fast running speed of 11 km/h. This study found excellent intra-session ICC(3,k) and very low SEM and MD of PFM EMG variables of preactivation and reflexive function during running. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, as – in consideration of crosstalk it is possible that not only PFM EMG was recorded but intravaginal EMG, meaning the sum of all muscle activity within the vagina during running. Consequently, crosstalk during functional whole body movements should be subject to further investigations of PFM EMG. Implications: Further trials should study inter-session reliability and PFM reactivity patterns of SUI patients using the average over ten steps for each variable as it showed very high ICC and very low SEM and MD. Subsequently longer running distances and other high-impact sports disciplines would be of high interest.