Bettina Karsten1, James Hopker2, Simon A Jobson3, Jonathan Baker4, Luca Petrigna1, Andreas Klose5, Christopher Beedie6. 1. a Department of Life and Sport Science , University of Greenwich , Kent , UK. 2. b School of Sport and Exercise Sciences , University of Kent , Kent , UK. 3. c Department of Sport & Exercise , University of Winchester , Hampshire , UK. 4. d Department of Sport and Exercise Science , Aberystwyth University , Wales , UK. 5. e Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster , Arbeitsbereich für Sportpädagogik , Münster , Germany. 6. f School of Human and Life Sciences , Canterbury University , Kent , UK.
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 (p[Formula: see text]max), and 3 protocols requiring time-to-exhaustion trials at a constant work-rate performed at 80%, 100% and 105% of p[Formula: see text]max. Design: Protocol A utilised 24-h inter-trial recovery (CP24/W'24), protocol B utilised 3-h inter-trial 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.
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 (p[Formula: see text]max), and 3 protocols requiring time-to-exhaustion trials at a constant work-rate performed at 80%, 100% and 105% of p[Formula: see text]max. Design: Protocol A utilised 24-h inter-trial recovery (CP24/W'24), protocol B utilised 3-h inter-trial 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.
Authors: Jean Romain Rivière; Nicolas Peyrot; Matthew R Cross; Laurent A Messonnier; Pierre Samozino Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Nathan E Townsend; David S Nichols; Philip F Skiba; Sebastien Racinais; Julien D Périard Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Christoph Triska; Bettina Karsten; Bernd Heidegger; Bernhard Koller-Zeisler; Bernhard Prinz; Alfred Nimmerichter; Harald Tschan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240