4.6 Article

A 3-min all-out cycling test is sensitive to a change in critical power

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 1693-1699

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318177871a

Keywords

power-duration relationship; exercise intensity domains; maximal steady state; interval training

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that a 3-min all-out cycling test would detect a change in critical power (CP) after a 4-wk interval training intervention. Methods: Nine habitually active subjects completed a ramp test, two 3-min all-out tests to establish the end power (EP) and the work done above EP (WEP), and three predicting trials to establish CP and W' using the work-time model (W = CPt + W'). After 12 supervised high-intensity interval training sessions over 4 wk, Subjects repeated the testing procedures. Results: The CP increased in all subjects after training (pretraining: 230 +/- 53 W; posttraining: 255 +/- 50 W; t(8) = 7.47, P < 0.001), with no statistically significant effect on the W' (pretraining: 17.2 +/- 4.2 kJ; posttraining: 15.5 +/- 3.8 kJ; t(8) = 2.03, P = 0.08). The all-out test EP was increased after training from 225 +/- 52 W to 248 +/- 46 W (t(8) = 6.26, P < 0.001). The EP and CP estimates before and after training were not different and were highly correlated (pretraining: r = 0.96, P < 0.001; posttraining: r = 0.95, P < 0.001). In addition, the increase in EP was correlated with (r = 0.77, P = 0.016) and not different from (t(8)=0.60, P= 0.57) the increase in CP. There was no change in the WEP from pretraining to posttraining (t(8) = 1.89, P = 0.10). Conclusions: The present study shows that the 3-min all-out test closely estimates CP across a wide range of aerobic fitness and is sensitive to training-induced changes in CP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available