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)')...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of applied physiology 2006-02, Vol.96 (3), p.257-264
Hauptverfasser: Dekerle, J, Brickley, G, Hammond, A J P, Pringle, J S M, Carter, H
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &lt; 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