Back

Shorter constant work rate cycling tests as proxies for longer tests in highly trained cyclists

du Plessis, C.; Andrews, M.; Mitchell, L.; Cochrane Wilkie, J.; King, T.; Blazevich, A.

2021-10-12 physiology
10.1101/2021.10.12.464126 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Severe-intensity constant work rate (CWR) cycling tests are useful for monitoring training progression and adaptation as they impose significant physiological and psychological strain and thus simulate the high-intensity competition environment. However, fatiguing tests require substantial recovery and may disrupt athlete training or competition preparation. Therefore, the development of a brief, minimally fatiguing test providing comparable information is desirable. PurposeTo determine whether physiological variables measured during, and functional decline in maximal power output immediately after, a 2-min CWR test can act as a proxy for 4-min test outcomes. MethodsPhysiological stress was monitored and pre-to-post-CWR changes in 10-s sprint power computed (to estimate performance fatigability) during 2- and 4-min CWR tests in high-level cyclists. ResultsThe 2-min CWR test evoked a smaller decline in sprint mechanical power (32% vs. 47%, p<0.001), however both the physiological variables and sprint mechanical power were independently and strongly correlated between 2- and 4-min tests. Differences in V{middle dot}O2peak and blood lactate concentration in both CWR tests were strongly associated with the decline in sprint mechanical power. ConclusionPhysiological variables measured during, and the loss in sprint mechanical power measured after, a severe-intensity 2-min CWR test were less than in the 4-min test. Yet strong correlations between 2- and 4-min test outcomes indicated that the 2-min test can be used as a proxy for the longer test. Because shorter tests are less strenuous, they should have less impact on training and competition preparation and may therefore be more practically applicable within the elite performance environment.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.3%
2
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
European Journal of Applied Physiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
4
Journal of Applied Physiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
6
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.9%
9
Experimental Physiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
11
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
12
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
13
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.8%
15
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
Function
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
17
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
The FASEB Journal
175 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
19
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.7%
20
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%