Back

Relationships between competition sprint cycling power and endurance power are high across ALL durations and energetic pathways

Ferguson, H. A.; Harnish, C.; Klich, S.; Michalik, K.; Dunst, A. K.; Zhou, T.; Chase, G. J.

2023-01-07 physiology
10.1101/2023.01.06.522987 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This study investigates associations between power at several durations to show inter- relationships of power across a range of durations in sprint track cyclists. The currently-accepted hypothesis peak power holds a near perfect relationship with sprint performance, and thus a near 1:1 slope with power at sprint durations up to 30-s, is tested. The equally well-accepted and complementary hypothesis there is no strong association with power over longer durations is also tested. 56 data sets from 27 cyclists (21 male, 6 female) provided maximal power for durations from 1-s to 20-min. Peak power values are compared to assess strength of correlation (R2), and any relationship (slope) across every level. R2 between 15-s - 30-s power and durations from 1-s to 20-min remained high (R2 [≥] 0.83). Despite current assumptions around 1-s power, our data shows this relationship is stronger around competition durations, and 1-s power also still shared strong relationships with longer durations out to 20-min. Slopes for relationships shorter durations were closer to a 1:1 relationship than longer durations, but closer to long- duration slopes than to a 1:1 line. The present analyses contradicts both well-accepted hypotheses, and the concept of peak power being a primary metric for sprint cycling, based on very strong relationships to power from durations commonly associated with oxidative energetic pathways, as well as short durations. This study shows the importance and potential of training durations from 1-s to 20-min over a preparation period to improve competition sprint cycling performance.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.