Abstract
Critical Power (CP) and W’ are often determined using multi-day testing protocols. To investigate this
cumbersome testing method, the purpose of this study was to compare the differences between the
conventional use of a 24-h inter-trial recovery time with those of 3 h and 30 min for the determination
of CP and W’. Methods: 9 moderately trained cyclists performed an incremental test to exhaustion to
establish the power output associated with the maximum oxygen uptake (pV :
O2max), and 3 protocols
requiring time-to-exhaustion trials at a constant work-rate performed at 80%, 100% and 105% of
pV
:
O2max. Design: Protocol A utilised 24-h inter-trial recovery (CP24/W’24), protocol B utilised 3-h intertrial
recovery (CP3/W’3), and protocol C used 30-min inter-trial recovery period (CP0.5/W’0.5). CP and W’
were calculated using the inverse time (1/t) versus power (P) relation (P = W’(1/t) + CP). Results: 95%
Limits of Agreement between protocol A and B were −9 to 15 W; −7.4 to 7.8 kJ (CP/W’) and between
protocol A and protocol C they were −27 to 22 W; −7.2 to 15.1 kJ (CP/W’). Compared to criterion
protocol A, the average prediction error of protocol B was 2.5% (CP) and 25.6% (W’), whilst for protocol
C it was 3.7% (CP) and 32.9% (W’). Conclusion: 3-h and 30-min inter-trial recovery time protocols
provide valid methods of determining CP but not W’ in cycling.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1420-1425 |
| Journal | Journal of Sports Sciences |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 14 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Aug 2016 |
Keywords
- Critical intensity
- power-duration relationship
- exercise testing
- anaerobic work capacity
- validity
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver