These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Critical Power in Laboratory and Field Conditions Using Single-visit Maximal Effort Trials.
    Author: Triska C, Tschan H, Tazreiter G, Nimmerichter A.
    Journal: Int J Sports Med; 2015 Nov; 36(13):1063-8. PubMed ID: 26258826.
    Abstract:
    To compare critical power (CP) and the maximum work performed above CP (W') obtained from a single-visit laboratory test with a single-visit field test, 10 trained cyclists (V˙O(2max) 63.2±5.5 mL·min(-1)·kg(-1)) performed a laboratory and a field test. The laboratory test consisted of 3 trials to exhaustion between 2-15 min and the field test comprised 3 maximal efforts of 2, 6 and 12 min, where power output was measured using a mobile power meter. CP and W' were estimated using 3 mathematical models (hyperbolic, linear work-time, linear power -1/time). The agreement between laboratory and field conditions was assessed with the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). CP was not significantly different between laboratory (280±33 W) and field conditions (281±28 W) (P=0.950). W' was significantly higher in laboratory (21.6±7.1 kJ) compared to field conditions (16.3±7.4 kJ) (P=0.013). The bias was -2.8±27 W (95% LoA: -55 to 50 W) and 6.4±5.1 kJ (95% LoA: -3.5 to 16.4 kJ) for CP and W', respectively. No differences between the mathematical models were found for CP and W' (P=0.054-1.000). Although CP was not significantly different between conditions, a high random variation does not support its interchangeable use. The mathematical model used has no influence on estimates of CP and W'.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]