Running Critical Power: A Comparison Of Different Theoretical Models

This study aimed (i) to compare the critical power (CP) and work capacity over CP (W) values reported by the different CP models available in current analysis software packages (Golden Cheetah and Stryd platform), (ii) to locate the CP values in the power-duration curve (PDC), and (iii) to determine the in-fluence of the CP model used on the W balance. Fifteen trained athletes performed four time trials (i. e., 3, 5, 10, 20 minutes) to define their PDC through different CP models: work-time (CPwork), power-1/time (CP1/time), Morton hyperbolic (CPhyp), Stryd platform (CPstryd), and Bioenergetic Golden Cheetah (CPCheetah). Three additional time trials were performed: two to locate the CP values in the PDC (30 and 60 min -ute s), and one to test the validity of the W' balance model (4 minutes). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were reported between all models for the estimated parameters (CP, W). CPcheetah was associated with the power output developed be-tween 10 to 20 minutes, CPwork to 20 minutes, and CP1/time, CPhyp, and CPstryd to 30 minutes. The W reported by each model overestimated the actual 4 minutes time to exhaustion, with CP1/time being the only valid model (p = 0.233, bias: 0.40 [0.06 to 0.75] minutes).

Automated summary

This study aimed to compare different critical power models in power analysis software and investigate their impact on work capacity and balance models. The results showed significant differences in estimated parameters among all models and each model overestimated the 4-minute endurance time.