Differences Among Estimates of Critical Power and Anaerobic Work Capacity Derived From Five Mathematical Models and the Three-Minute All-Out Test

Abstract

Estimates of critical power (CP) and anaerobic work capacity (AWC) from the power output vs. time relationship have been derived from various mathematical models. The purpose of this study was to examine estimates of CP and AWC from the multiple work bout, 2- and 3-parameter models, and those from the 3-minute all-out CP (CP3min) test. Nine college-aged subjects performed a maximal incremental test to determine the peak oxygen consumption rate and the gas exchange threshold. On separate days, each subject completed 4 randomly ordered constant power output rides to exhaustion to estimate CP and AWC from 5 regression models (2 linear, 2 nonlinear, and 1 exponential). During the final visit, CP and AWC were estimated from the CP3min test. The nonlinear 3-parameter (Nonlinear-3) model produced the lowest estimate of CP. The exponential (EXP) model and the CP3min test were not statistically different and produced the highest estimates of CP. Critical power estimated from the Nonlinear-3 model was 14% less than those from the EXP model and the CP3min test and 4-6% less than those from the linear models. Furthermore, the Nonlinear-3 and nonlinear 2-parameter (Nonlinear-2) models produced significantly greater estimates of AWC than did the linear models and CP3min. The current findings suggested that the Nonlinear-3 model may provide estimates of CP and AWC that more accurately reflect the asymptote of the power output vs. time relationship, the demarcation of the heavy and severe exercise intensity domains, and anaerobic capabilities than will the linear models and CP3min test.

The Sensitivity of the Critical Resistance Model to Detect Sex-Related Differences in Fatigue During Submaximal Muscular Contractions

“…In the present study, the R 2 and SEE values for the combined sample were 0.965 ± 0.034 kg and 110.9 ± 45.9 kg, respectively. The R 2 values in the present study (R 2 = 0.864-0.994) were consistent with those (R 2 = 0.996-1.00) previously reported for the relationship between time to exhaustion and total work for both critical power and critical velocity [1][2][3][4], and for the three-parameter non-linear relationship between resistance and repetitions completed (R 2 = 0.670-1.00) for the bench press [16]. Thus, the R 2 values reported in the present study indicate that the model used to identify critical power, critical velocity, and CR for an upper body-specific DCER exercise can be expanded to a full body DCER exercise.…”

Modeling Intermittent Cycling Performance in Hypoxia Using the Critical Power Concept

“…Several studies have found CP determined in the 3AOT to overestimate CP from the 2-parameter nonlinear model (8,9,28), particularly in well-trained endurance athletes (28). These studies did not use identical methods though to those of Vanhatalo et al (40).…”

“…During both pilot and experimental testing, we observed multiple instances where EP was slightly greater than the minimum 30-s moving average power. Previous research indicates the EP may overestimate CP determined via the two-parameter nonlinear model (8,9,28). Thus, to avoid any potential overestimation of CP, we also determined the minimum 30-s moving average power output, which is expressed as CP in the ''Results'' and ''Discussion'' sections.…”

Physiological differences between advanced CrossFit athletes, recreational CrossFit participants, and physically-active adults

“…elsewhere [45]. Briefly, the test began with a 1-minute baseline period that involved 55 seconds of unloaded cycling at 90 rpm and then accelerating up to approximately 110 rpm over the last 5 seconds of the minute.…”