TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of inter-trial recovery times for the determination of critical power and W’ in cycling.
AU - Karsten, B
AU - Hopker, J
AU - Jobson, Simon
AU - Baker, J
AU - Petrigna, L
AU - Klose, A
AU - Beedie, C
PY - 2016/8/17
Y1 - 2016/8/17
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Critical intensity
KW - power-duration relationship
KW - exercise testing
KW - anaerobic work capacity
KW - validity
U2 - 10.1080/02640414.2016.1215500
DO - 10.1080/02640414.2016.1215500
M3 - Article
VL - 35
SP - 1420
EP - 1425
JO - Journal of Sports Sciences
JF - Journal of Sports Sciences
SN - 0264-0414
IS - 14
ER -