Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2005
Scaling maximal oxygen uptake to predict cycling time-trial performance in the field: a non-linear approach.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk-benefit.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Pooled it
- The Athlete's Brain: Cross-Sectional Evidence for Neural Efficiency during Cycling Exercise.Neural plasticity · 2016Article
- Optimal [Formula: see text] ratio for predicting 15 km performance among elite male cross-country skiers.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2015Article
- Oxygen uptake at different intensities and sub-techniques predicts sprint performance in elite male cross-country skiers.European journal of applied physiology · 2014Article
- Effect of the rotor crank system on cycling performance.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2009Article
- Optimal power-to-mass ratios when predicting flat and hill-climbing time-trial cycling.European journal of applied physiology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present article is to identify the most appropriate method of scaling VO2max for differences in body mass when assessing the energy cost of time-trial cycling. The data from three time-trial cycling studies were analysed (N = 79) using a proportional power-function ANCOVA model. The maximum oxygen uptake-to-mass ratio found to predict cycling speed was VO2max(m)(-0.32) precisely the same as that derived by Swain for sub-maximal cycling speeds (10, 15 and 20 mph). The analysis was also able to confirm a proportional curvilinear association between cycling speed and energy cost, given by (VO2max(m)(-0.32))0.41. The model predicts, for example, that for a male cyclist (72 kg) to increase his average speed from 30 km h(-1) to 35 km h(-1), he would require an increase in VO2max from 2.36 l min(-1) to 3.44 l min(-1), an increase of 1.08 l min(-1). In contrast, for the cyclist to increase his mean speed from 40 km h(-1) to 45 km h(-1), he would require a greater increase in VO2max from 4.77 l min(-1) to 6.36 l min(-1), i.e. an increase of 1.59 l min(-1). The model is also able to accommodate other determinants of time-trial cycling, e.g. the benefit of cycling with a side wind (5% faster) compared with facing a predominately head/tail wind (P<0.05). Future research could explore whether the same scaling approach could be applied to, for example, alternative measures of recording power output to improve the prediction of time-trial cycling performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.