Estimation of the Parameters of the Relationship Between Power and Time to Exhaustion From a Single Ramp Test

Pouilly, Jean-Pierre; Chatagnon, Michel; Thomas, Vincent; Busso, Thierry

doi:10.1139/h05-152

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our previous work showed that the WEP in a standard 3 min all‐out test can be used to estimate the W ′ (Vanhatalo et al 2007); however, it was not shown whether the magnitude of the WEP parameter would be affected by its temporal allocation during the test. It has now been demonstrated that the magnitude of the W ′ remains the same for constant single work rate exercise (Hill, 1993; Smith & Hill, 1993; Hill & Smith, 1994; Morton & Billat, 2004); for stepwise variations of constant work rates (Fukuba et al 2003); for incremental ramp exercise (Morton et al 1997; Pouilly et al 2005); and, assuming that WEP is equivalent to W ′, for combinations of constant work rate and all‐out exercise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robustness of a 3 min all‐out cycling test to manipulations of power profile and cadence in humans

Vanhatalo

Doust

2007

Experimental Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess whether end-test power output (EP, synonymous with 'critical power') and the work done above EP (WEP) during a 3 min all-out cycling test against a fixed resistance were affected by the manipulation of cadence or pacing. Nine subjects performed a ramp test followed, in random order, by three cadence trials (in which flywheel resistance was manipulated to achieve end-test cadences which varied by ∼20 r.p.m.) and two pacing trials (30 s at 100 or 130% of maximal ramp test power, followed by 2.5 min all-out effort against standard resistance). End-test power output was calculated as the mean power output over the final 30 s and the WEP as the power-time integral over 180 s for each trial. End-test power output was unaffected by reducing cadence below that of the 'standard test' but was reduced by ∼10 W on the adoption of a higher cadence [244 ± 41 W for high cadence (at an end-test cadence of 95 ± 7 r.p.m.), 254 ± 40 W for the standard test (at 88 ± 6 r.p.m.) and 251 ± 38 W for low cadence (at 77 ± 5 r.p.m.)]. Pacing over the initial 30 s of the test had no effect on the EP or WEP estimates in comparison with the standard trial. The WEP was significantly higher in the low cadence trial (16.2 ± 4.4 kJ) and lower in the high cadence trial (12.9 ± 3.6 kJ) than in the standard test (14.2 ± 3.7 kJ). Thus, EP is robust to the manipulation of power profile but is reduced by adopting cadences higher than 'standard'. While the WEP is robust to initial pacing applied, it is sensitive to even relatively minor changes in cadence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robustness of a 3 min all‐out cycling test to manipulations of power profile and cadence in humans

Vanhatalo

Doust

2007

Experimental Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The power output associated with PET and CP were between VT 1 and VT 2 . Moritani et al [21] and Pouilly et al [29] have shown that CP is equivalent to VT 1 . On the other hand, Smith and Jones [34] demonstrated that CP corresponds to VT 2 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Perceived exertion threshold: Comparison with ventilatory thresholds and critical power

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These tests are not only time consuming, but also physically and mentally demanding for the athlete. For this reason, previous studies already explored alternative test protocols, including a 3-min all-out test (4), a ramp-sprint test (5) or a simple ramp incremental test (6). Of these, a ramp incremental test seems to be the most feasible alternative as it can be easily tailored to the individual by adjusting the ramp slope and because these tests are already widely used in both sports and clinical practice (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that Black et al (17) calculated W 0 only as the work done above CP and did not investigate its replacement by RCP. Actually, Pouilly et al (6) were the first who attempted to derive CP and W 0 concomitantly from a single ramp incremental test. However, the results of that study may be of little significance as the authors incorrectly used gas exchange threshold (GET) instead of RCP as a surrogate for CP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Accurately Predict Critical Power and W′ from a Single Ramp Incremental Exercise Test?

Caen

Bourgois

Stuer

et al. 2023

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine the suitability of a single ramp incremental test to predict critical power (CP) and W′. We hypothesized that CP would correspond to the corrected power output (PO) at the respiratory compensation point (RCP) and W′ would be calculable from the work done above RCP.MethodsOne hundred fifty-three healthy young people (26 ± 4 yr, 51.4 ± 7.6 mL·min−1·kg−1) performed a maximal ramp test (20, 25, or 30 W·min−1), followed by three to five constant load trials to determine CP and W′. CP and W′ were estimated using a “best individual fit” approach, selecting the mathematical model with the smallest total error. The RCP was identified by means of gas exchange analysis and then translated into its appropriate PO by applying a correction strategy in order to account for the gap in the V̇O2/PO relationship between ramp and constant load exercise. We evaluated the agreement between CP and the PO at RCP, and between W′ and the total work done above CP (W′RAMP > CP) and above RCP (W′RAMP > RCP) during the ramp test.ResultsThe CP was significantly higher than the PO at RCP (Δ = 8 ± 16 W, P < 0.001). W′RAMP > CP was significantly lower than W′ (Δ = 1.9 ± 3.3 kJ, P < 0.001), whereas W′RAMP > RCP and W′ did not differ from each other (Δ = −0.6 ± 5.8 kJ, P = 0.21).ConclusionsDespite the fact that CP and RCP occurred in close proximity, the estimation of W′ from ramp exercise may be problematic given the likelihood of underestimation and considering the large variability. Therefore, we do not recommend the interchangeable use of CP and W′ values derived from constant load versus ramp exercise, in particular, when the goal is to obtain accurate estimates or to predict performance capacity.

show abstract

Estimation of the Parameters of the Relationship Between Power and Time to Exhaustion From a Single Ramp Test

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Robustness of a 3 min all‐out cycling test to manipulations of power profile and cadence in humans

Robustness of a 3 min all‐out cycling test to manipulations of power profile and cadence in humans

Perceived exertion threshold: Comparison with ventilatory thresholds and critical power

Can We Accurately Predict Critical Power and W′ from a Single Ramp Incremental Exercise Test?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About