ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2010
A comparison of modelling procedures used to estimate the power-exhaustion time relationship.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Examination and Critique of Current Methods to Determine Exercise Intensity.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
19777251What 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.