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

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1 250  W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90  rev x min(-1). Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300  W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300  W) in both human populations (156±72  W vs. 153±64  W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8-13.2%) compared to 2.2% with the SRM (95%CI 1.5-4.1%). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6% (95%CI 1.8-5.1%) compared to 1.1% with the SRM (95%CI 0.7-2.0%). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.

SummaryThis article reviews the notion of the 'anaerobic threshold' in the context of cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Primarily, this is a review of the proposed mechanisms underlying the ventilatory and lactate response to incremental exercise, which is important to the clinical interpretation of an exercise test. Since such tests are often conducted for risk stratification before major surgery, a failure to locate or justify the existence of an anaerobic threshold will have some implications for clinical practice. We also consider alternative endpoints within the exercise response that might be better used to indicate a patient's capacity to cope with the metabolic demands encountered both during and following major surgery.

The link between athlete physique and performance in sports is well established. However, a direct link between somatotype three-numeral rating and anaerobic performance has not yet been reported. The purpose of this study was to assess the relations between somatotype and anaerobic performance using both singular and multivariate analyses. Thirty-six physically active males (mean ± standard deviation age 26.0 ± 9.8 years; body mass 79.5 ± 12.9 kg; height 1.82 ± 0.07 m) were somatotype-rated using the Heath-Carter method. Subjects were assessed for 3 repetition maximum (3 RM) bench press and back squat, and completed a 30-second maximal sprint cycle test. Positive correlations were observed between mesomorphy and 3 RM bench press (r = 0.560, p < 0.001), mesomorphy and 3 RM back squat (r = 0.550, p = 0.001) and between mesomorphy and minimum power output (r = 0.357, p = 0.033). Negative correlations were observed between ectomorphy and 3 RM bench press (r = -0.381, p = 0.022), and ectomorphy and 3 RM back squat (r = -0.336, p = 0.045). Individual regression analysis indicated that mesomorphy was the best predictor of 3 RM bench press performance, with 31.4% of variance in 3 RM bench press performance accounted for by the mesomorphy rating (p < 0.001). A combination of mesomorphy and ectomorphy best predicted 3 RM back squat performance (R2 = 0.388, p < 0.04). Around one third of strength performance is predicted by somatotype-assessed physique in physically active males. This could have important implications for the identification of those predisposed to perform well in sports containing strength-based movements and prescription of training programmes.