Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19777251›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2010

A comparison of modelling procedures used to estimate the power-exhaustion time relationship.

Thierry Busso, Philippe Gimenez, Michel Chatagnon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thierry BussoLaboratoire de Physiologie de l'Exercice, Université Jean Monnet, PRES Université de Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France. busso@univ-st-etienne.fr
Philippe Gimenez
Michel Chatagnon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to test the consistency of using the power required to elicit maximal oxygen uptake during incremental test (P (t)) to demarcate the range of power intensity in the modelling of the power-exhaustion time relationship. Different mathematical procedures were tested using data from ten subjects exercising on a cycle ergometer. After the determination of P (t) and the power at the ventilatory threshold, the subjects did six tests at constant power to exhaustion within 2-15 min. Estimates were obtained from a segmented model using two distinct equations of the anaerobic contribution to power below and above P (t), respectively. This model fit the overall data with a better adequacy than the simple hyperbolic model (standard error of 29.2 +/- 25.2 vs. 42.3 +/- 25.2 s). The power asymptotes were 225.7 +/- 27.3 W from the segmented model, 226.2 +/- 27.3 and 283.3 +/- 20.5 W from the simple model applied to data below and above P (t), respectively. The estimates from the segmented model were strongly correlated with their analogues from the simple model applied only to data below P (t) (R = 1.00 for power asymptote and curvature coefficient). They were not correlated with their analogues from the simple model applied only to data above P (t). These discrepancies between modelling procedures could arise from the method used to determine P (t) and the oversimplification of the oxygen uptake kinetics. These limitations could lead the segmented model to an overestimation of the anaerobic contribution which was around 15% of total energy expended at P (t).

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAdultBicyclingExercise ToleranceHumansMaleOxygen ConsumptionPhysical EnduranceTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.