Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity
The curvature of the power-time (P-t) relationship (W') has been suggested to be constant when exercising above critical power (CP) and to represent the anaerobic work capacity (AWC). The aim of this study was to compare W' to (1) the total amount of work performed above CP (W (90s)')...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of applied physiology 2006-02, Vol.96 (3), p.257-264 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 264 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 257 |
container_title | European journal of applied physiology |
container_volume | 96 |
creator | Dekerle, J Brickley, G Hammond, A J P Pringle, J S M Carter, H |
description | The curvature of the power-time (P-t) relationship (W') has been suggested to be constant when exercising above critical power (CP) and to represent the anaerobic work capacity (AWC). The aim of this study was to compare W' to (1) the total amount of work performed above CP (W (90s)') and (2) the AWC, both determined from a 90s all-out fixed cadence test. Fourteen participants (age 30.5 +/- 6.5 years; body mass 67.8 +/- 10.3 kg), following an incremental VO(2max) ramp protocol, performed three constant load exhaustion tests set at 103 +/- 3, 97 +/- 3 and 90 +/- 2% P-VO(2max) to calculate W' from the P-t relationship. Two 90s all-out efforts were also undertaken to determine W (90s)' (power output-time integral above CP) and AWC (power output-time integral above the power output expected from the measured VO(2)). W' (13.6 +/- 1.3 kJ) and W (90s)' (13.9 +/- 1.1 kJ; P = 0.96) were not significantly different but were lower than AWC (15.9 +/- 1.2 kJ) by 24% (P = 0.03) and 17%, respectively (P = 0.04). All these variables were correlated (P < 0.001) but great extents of disagreement were reported (0.2 +/- 6.4 kJ between W' and W (90s)', 2.3 +/- 7.2 kJ between W' and AWC, and 2.1 +/- 4.3 kJ between W (90s)' and AWC). The underestimation of AWC from both W' and W (90s)' can be explained by the aerobic inertia not taking into consideration when determining the two latter variables. The low extents of agreement between W', W (90s)' and AWC mean the terms should not be used interchangeably. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00421-005-0074-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67634649</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17083602</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ec511398f30ce95a59f1fc9eb28e0e26cb391bd09b85039e8a49065be44673b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMo7rr6A7xI8eCtOmnaNDnK4hcoXtRrSNOpdm2bmrQs--_NfqDgxUOYHJ55mZmHkFMKlxQgv_IAaUJjgCy8PI3FHpnSlMmYsyTf__lTOSFH3i8AQCRUHJIJ5QmnTPApeXrTTV3WwyqyVTR8YDQsbdxrp1sc0EWtLbGJ6i5CP9StHurufUPpTqOzRW2ipXWfkdG9NiHkmBxUuvF4sqsz8np78zK_jx-f7x7m14-xYVk-xGgySpkUFQODMtOZrGhlJBaJQMCEm4JJWpQgC5EBkyh0KoFnBaYpz1kh2YxcbHN7Z7_GMJtqa2-waXSHdvSK55ylPP0fpDkIxiEJ4PkfcGFH14UlVLhUxhLYQHQLGWe9d1ip3oWruJWioNZG1NaICkbU2ogSoedsFzwWLZa_HTsF7Bt0R4VX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>613532002</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Dekerle, J ; Brickley, G ; Hammond, A J P ; Pringle, J S M ; Carter, H</creator><creatorcontrib>Dekerle, J ; Brickley, G ; Hammond, A J P ; Pringle, J S M ; Carter, H</creatorcontrib><description>The curvature of the power-time (P-t) relationship (W') has been suggested to be constant when exercising above critical power (CP) and to represent the anaerobic work capacity (AWC). The aim of this study was to compare W' to (1) the total amount of work performed above CP (W (90s)') and (2) the AWC, both determined from a 90s all-out fixed cadence test. Fourteen participants (age 30.5 +/- 6.5 years; body mass 67.8 +/- 10.3 kg), following an incremental VO(2max) ramp protocol, performed three constant load exhaustion tests set at 103 +/- 3, 97 +/- 3 and 90 +/- 2% P-VO(2max) to calculate W' from the P-t relationship. Two 90s all-out efforts were also undertaken to determine W (90s)' (power output-time integral above CP) and AWC (power output-time integral above the power output expected from the measured VO(2)). W' (13.6 +/- 1.3 kJ) and W (90s)' (13.9 +/- 1.1 kJ; P = 0.96) were not significantly different but were lower than AWC (15.9 +/- 1.2 kJ) by 24% (P = 0.03) and 17%, respectively (P = 0.04). All these variables were correlated (P < 0.001) but great extents of disagreement were reported (0.2 +/- 6.4 kJ between W' and W (90s)', 2.3 +/- 7.2 kJ between W' and AWC, and 2.1 +/- 4.3 kJ between W (90s)' and AWC). The underestimation of AWC from both W' and W (90s)' can be explained by the aerobic inertia not taking into consideration when determining the two latter variables. The low extents of agreement between W', W (90s)' and AWC mean the terms should not be used interchangeably.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1439-6319</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1439-6327</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00421-005-0074-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16261386</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anaerobic Threshold ; Analysis of Variance ; Exercise Test ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Models, Statistical ; Oxygen Consumption - physiology ; Physical Endurance - physiology ; Regression Analysis ; Reproducibility of Results ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>European journal of applied physiology, 2006-02, Vol.96 (3), p.257-264</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ec511398f30ce95a59f1fc9eb28e0e26cb391bd09b85039e8a49065be44673b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ec511398f30ce95a59f1fc9eb28e0e26cb391bd09b85039e8a49065be44673b93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16261386$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dekerle, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brickley, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammond, A J P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pringle, J S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, H</creatorcontrib><title>Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity</title><title>European journal of applied physiology</title><addtitle>Eur J Appl Physiol</addtitle><description>The curvature of the power-time (P-t) relationship (W') has been suggested to be constant when exercising above critical power (CP) and to represent the anaerobic work capacity (AWC). The aim of this study was to compare W' to (1) the total amount of work performed above CP (W (90s)') and (2) the AWC, both determined from a 90s all-out fixed cadence test. Fourteen participants (age 30.5 +/- 6.5 years; body mass 67.8 +/- 10.3 kg), following an incremental VO(2max) ramp protocol, performed three constant load exhaustion tests set at 103 +/- 3, 97 +/- 3 and 90 +/- 2% P-VO(2max) to calculate W' from the P-t relationship. Two 90s all-out efforts were also undertaken to determine W (90s)' (power output-time integral above CP) and AWC (power output-time integral above the power output expected from the measured VO(2)). W' (13.6 +/- 1.3 kJ) and W (90s)' (13.9 +/- 1.1 kJ; P = 0.96) were not significantly different but were lower than AWC (15.9 +/- 1.2 kJ) by 24% (P = 0.03) and 17%, respectively (P = 0.04). All these variables were correlated (P < 0.001) but great extents of disagreement were reported (0.2 +/- 6.4 kJ between W' and W (90s)', 2.3 +/- 7.2 kJ between W' and AWC, and 2.1 +/- 4.3 kJ between W (90s)' and AWC). The underestimation of AWC from both W' and W (90s)' can be explained by the aerobic inertia not taking into consideration when determining the two latter variables. The low extents of agreement between W', W (90s)' and AWC mean the terms should not be used interchangeably.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anaerobic Threshold</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Exercise Test</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</subject><subject>Physical Endurance - physiology</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>1439-6319</issn><issn>1439-6327</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMo7rr6A7xI8eCtOmnaNDnK4hcoXtRrSNOpdm2bmrQs--_NfqDgxUOYHJ55mZmHkFMKlxQgv_IAaUJjgCy8PI3FHpnSlMmYsyTf__lTOSFH3i8AQCRUHJIJ5QmnTPApeXrTTV3WwyqyVTR8YDQsbdxrp1sc0EWtLbGJ6i5CP9StHurufUPpTqOzRW2ipXWfkdG9NiHkmBxUuvF4sqsz8np78zK_jx-f7x7m14-xYVk-xGgySpkUFQODMtOZrGhlJBaJQMCEm4JJWpQgC5EBkyh0KoFnBaYpz1kh2YxcbHN7Z7_GMJtqa2-waXSHdvSK55ylPP0fpDkIxiEJ4PkfcGFH14UlVLhUxhLYQHQLGWe9d1ip3oWruJWioNZG1NaICkbU2ogSoedsFzwWLZa_HTsF7Bt0R4VX</recordid><startdate>200602</startdate><enddate>200602</enddate><creator>Dekerle, J</creator><creator>Brickley, G</creator><creator>Hammond, A J P</creator><creator>Pringle, J S M</creator><creator>Carter, H</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200602</creationdate><title>Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity</title><author>Dekerle, J ; Brickley, G ; Hammond, A J P ; Pringle, J S M ; Carter, H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ec511398f30ce95a59f1fc9eb28e0e26cb391bd09b85039e8a49065be44673b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anaerobic Threshold</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Exercise Test</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Oxygen Consumption - physiology</topic><topic>Physical Endurance - physiology</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dekerle, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brickley, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammond, A J P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pringle, J S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, H</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of applied physiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dekerle, J</au><au>Brickley, G</au><au>Hammond, A J P</au><au>Pringle, J S M</au><au>Carter, H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity</atitle><jtitle>European journal of applied physiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Appl Physiol</addtitle><date>2006-02</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>96</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>257</spage><epage>264</epage><pages>257-264</pages><issn>1439-6319</issn><eissn>1439-6327</eissn><abstract>The curvature of the power-time (P-t) relationship (W') has been suggested to be constant when exercising above critical power (CP) and to represent the anaerobic work capacity (AWC). The aim of this study was to compare W' to (1) the total amount of work performed above CP (W (90s)') and (2) the AWC, both determined from a 90s all-out fixed cadence test. Fourteen participants (age 30.5 +/- 6.5 years; body mass 67.8 +/- 10.3 kg), following an incremental VO(2max) ramp protocol, performed three constant load exhaustion tests set at 103 +/- 3, 97 +/- 3 and 90 +/- 2% P-VO(2max) to calculate W' from the P-t relationship. Two 90s all-out efforts were also undertaken to determine W (90s)' (power output-time integral above CP) and AWC (power output-time integral above the power output expected from the measured VO(2)). W' (13.6 +/- 1.3 kJ) and W (90s)' (13.9 +/- 1.1 kJ; P = 0.96) were not significantly different but were lower than AWC (15.9 +/- 1.2 kJ) by 24% (P = 0.03) and 17%, respectively (P = 0.04). All these variables were correlated (P < 0.001) but great extents of disagreement were reported (0.2 +/- 6.4 kJ between W' and W (90s)', 2.3 +/- 7.2 kJ between W' and AWC, and 2.1 +/- 4.3 kJ between W (90s)' and AWC). The underestimation of AWC from both W' and W (90s)' can be explained by the aerobic inertia not taking into consideration when determining the two latter variables. The low extents of agreement between W', W (90s)' and AWC mean the terms should not be used interchangeably.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>16261386</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00421-005-0074-8</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1439-6319 |
ispartof | European journal of applied physiology, 2006-02, Vol.96 (3), p.257-264 |
issn | 1439-6319 1439-6327 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67634649 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Adult Anaerobic Threshold Analysis of Variance Exercise Test Female Humans Male Models, Statistical Oxygen Consumption - physiology Physical Endurance - physiology Regression Analysis Reproducibility of Results Time Factors |
title | Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T20%3A26%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20of%20the%20two-parameter%20model%20in%20estimating%20the%20anaerobic%20work%20capacity&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20applied%20physiology&rft.au=Dekerle,%20J&rft.date=2006-02&rft.volume=96&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=257&rft.epage=264&rft.pages=257-264&rft.issn=1439-6319&rft.eissn=1439-6327&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00421-005-0074-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17083602%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=613532002&rft_id=info:pmid/16261386&rfr_iscdi=true |