## Abstract

Sixteen young, healthy males each performed five to seven randomly assigned, exhaustive exercise bouts on a cycle ergometer, with each bout on a separate day and at a different power, to compare estimates of critical power (P_{C}) and anaerobic work capacity (W) among five different models: t = W′/(P − P_{C}) (two-parameter nonlinear); t = (W′/(P − P_{C})) − (W′/(P_{max}− P_{C})) (three-parameter nonlinear); P • t = W + (P_{C}•t) (linear (P • t)); P = (W′/t) + P_{C}(linear (P)); P = P_{C}+ (P_{max}− P_{C})exp(−t/τ) (exponential). The data fit each of the models well (mean R^{2}= 0.96 through 1.00 for each model). However, significant differences among models were observed for both P_{C}(mean ± standard deviation (SD) for each model was 195 ± 29 W through 242 ± 21 W) and W′ (18 ± 5 kJ through 58 ± 19 kJ). P_{C}estimates among models were significantly correlated (r = 0.78 through 0.99). For W′, between-model correlations ranged from 0.25 to 0.95. For a group of six subjects, the ventilatory threshold for long-term exercise (LTE T_{vent}; 189 ± 34 W) was significantly lower than P_{C}for all models except the three-parameter nonlinear (P_{C}= 197 ± 30 W); P_{C}for each model was, however, positively correlated with LTE T_{vent}(r = 0.69 through 0.91). The three-parameter nonlinear model, with t appropriately designated as the dependent variable, is preferred first, on statistical grounds; second, because the assumption is not made that P is infinite as t approaches 0; and third, because it produces a P_{C}estimate that comes.

Original language | English (US) |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 1430-1438 |

Number of pages | 9 |

Journal | Medicine and science in sports and exercise |

Volume | 27 |

Issue number | 10 |

State | Published - Oct 1995 |

Externally published | Yes |

## ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation