Kevin Caen1, Jan Boone, Jan G Bourgois, Alessandro L Colosio, Silvia Pogliaghi. 1. 1Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, BELGIUM 2Center of Sports Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, BELGIUM 3Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, ITALY.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to model the dissociation in the V˙O2/power output (PO) relationship between ramp incremental (RI) and constant work rate (CWR) exercise and to develop a novel strategy that resolves this gap and enables an accurate translation of the RI V˙O2 response into a constant PO. METHODS: Nine young men completed two RI tests (30 and 15 W·min) and CWR tests at seven intensities across exercise intensity domains. The V˙O2/PO relationship for RI and CWR exercise was modeled, and the dissociation was compared in terms of PO. The accuracy of three translation strategies was tested in the moderate-intensity (i.e., zone 1) and heavy-intensity (i.e., zone 2) domain. Strategy 1 comprised a simple mean response time correction, whereas strategies 2 and 3 accounted for the loss of mechanical efficiency in zone 2 by applying an extra correction that was based on, respectively, the difference between s2 - CWR and s2 - ramp and the ratio s2/s1. RESULTS: For all intensities, differences in PO were found between CWR and RI exercise (P < 0.001). Overall, these differences were smaller for the 15-W·min compared with the 30-W·min protocol (P = 0.012). Strategy 1 was accurate for PO selection in zone 1 (bias = 0.4 ± 7.3 W), but not in zone 2 (bias = 17.1 ± 15.9 W). Only strategy 2 was found to be accurate for both intensity zones (bias = 2.2 ± 14.2 W) (P = 0.107). CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that a simple mean response time correction works for PO selection in the moderate-intensity but not in the heavy-intensity domain. A novel strategy was tested and validated to accurately prescribe a constant PO based on the RI V˙O2 response in a population of young healthy men.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to model the dissociation in the V˙O2/power output (PO) relationship between ramp incremental (RI) and constant work rate (CWR) exercise and to develop a novel strategy that resolves this gap and enables an accurate translation of the RI V˙O2 response into a constant PO. METHODS: Nine young men completed two RI tests (30 and 15 W·min) and CWR tests at seven intensities across exercise intensity domains. The V˙O2/PO relationship for RI and CWR exercise was modeled, and the dissociation was compared in terms of PO. The accuracy of three translation strategies was tested in the moderate-intensity (i.e., zone 1) and heavy-intensity (i.e., zone 2) domain. Strategy 1 comprised a simple mean response time correction, whereas strategies 2 and 3 accounted for the loss of mechanical efficiency in zone 2 by applying an extra correction that was based on, respectively, the difference between s2 - CWR and s2 - ramp and the ratio s2/s1. RESULTS: For all intensities, differences in PO were found between CWR and RI exercise (P < 0.001). Overall, these differences were smaller for the 15-W·min compared with the 30-W·min protocol (P = 0.012). Strategy 1 was accurate for PO selection in zone 1 (bias = 0.4 ± 7.3 W), but not in zone 2 (bias = 17.1 ± 15.9 W). Only strategy 2 was found to be accurate for both intensity zones (bias = 2.2 ± 14.2 W) (P = 0.107). CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that a simple mean response time correction works for PO selection in the moderate-intensity but not in the heavy-intensity domain. A novel strategy was tested and validated to accurately prescribe a constant PO based on the RI V˙O2 response in a population of young healthy men.
Authors: Thibaux Van der Stede; Laura Blancquaert; Flore Stassen; Inge Everaert; Ruud Van Thienen; Chris Vervaet; Lasse Gliemann; Ylva Hellsten; Wim Derave Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Carlo Ferri Marini; Ario Federici; James S Skinner; Giovanni Piccoli; Vilberto Stocchi; Luca Zoffoli; Luca Correale; Stefano Dell'Anna; Carlo Alberto Naldini; Matteo Vandoni; Francesco Lucertini Journal: PeerJ Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.061