It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally ‘aerobic’ (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in ‘muscle strengthening activities’ though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift.

2 2 ABSTRACT Purpose: To test the validity and reliability of field critical power (CP). Method: Laboratory CP tests comprised of three exhaustive trials at intensities of 80%, 100% and 105% maximal aerobic power and CP results were compared with those determined from the field. Experiment 1: cyclists performed three CP field tests which comprised maximal efforts of 12 min, 7 min and 3 min with a 30 min recovery between efforts. Experiment 2: cyclists performed 3 x 3 min, 3 x 7 min and 3 x 12 min individual maximal efforts in a randomised order in the field. Experiment 3: the highest 3 min, 7 min and 12 min power outputs were extracted from field training and racing data. Results:Standard error of the estimate of CP was 4.5%, 5.8% and 5.2% for experiments 1-3 respectively.Limits of Agreement for CP were -26 -29 W, 26 -53 W and -34 -44 W for experiments 1-3 respectively. Mean coefficient of variation in field CP was 2.4%, 6.5% and 3.5 % for experiments 1-3 respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients of the three repeated trials for CP were 0.99, 0.96 and 0.99 for experiments 1-3 respectively. Conclusions: Results suggest field-testing using the different protocols from this research study, produce both valid and reliable CP values.

word count: 179 9Text only word count: 4307 10

No abstract

Karsten, B., Jobson, S. A., Hopker, J., Jimenez, A., Beedie, C. (2014). High Agreement between Laboratory and Field Estimates of Critical Power in Cycling. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35 (4), 298-303The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of agreement between laboratory-based estimates of critical power (CP) and results taken from a novel field test. Subjects were fourteen trained cyclists (age 40 +/- 7 yrs; body mass 70.2 +/- 6.5 kg; O-2max 3.8 +/- 0.5 L center dot min(-1)). Laboratory-based CP was estimated from 3 constant work-rate tests at 80%, 100% and 105% of maximal aerobic power (MAP). Field-based CP was estimated from 3 all-out tests performed on an outdoor velodrome over fixed durations of 3, 7 and 12 min. Using the linear work limit (W-lim) vs. time limit (T-lim) relation for the estimation of CP1 values and the inverse time (1/t) vs. power (P) models for the estimation of CP2 values, field-based CP1 and CP2 values did not significantly differ from laboratory-based values (234 +/- 24.4 W vs. 234 +/- 25.5 W (CP1); PpublishersversionPeer reviewe