Comparison of inter-trial recovery times for the determination of critical power and W' in cycling.

Article English OPEN
Karsten, B ; Hopker, J. ; Jobson, S. ; Baker, J. ; Petrigna, L. ; Klose, A. ; Beedie, C. (2016)

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'.\ud METHODS:\ud 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).\ud RESULTS:\ud 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').\ud CONCLUSION:\ud 3-h and 30-min inter-trial recovery time protocols provide valid methods of determining CP but not W' in cycling.
  • References (1)

    Page 21 of 21 Protocol A vs. B p-value 0.83 0.18 0.84 100% TTE (s) 251 ± 81 222 ± 81 210 ± 79 Protocol A vs. C p-value 0.75 0.10 0.12 Protocol B vs. C p-value 0.87 0.37 0.08

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark