ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2015
Validity and reliability of critical power field testing.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- High-dose short-term creatine supplementation without beneficial effects in professional cyclists: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2024Trial
- Pre-sleep protein supplementation in professional cyclists during a training camp: a three-arm randomized controlled trial.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2023Trial
- Effects of Multi-Ingredient Preworkout Supplementation across a Five-Day Resistance and Endurance Training Microcycle in Middle-Aged Adults.Nutrients · 2020Trial
- Role-Specific Performance Profiles of Professional Cyclists in a Grand Tour.European journal of sport science · 2026Observational
- RACLET: the Ramp Above Critical Level Endurance Test to evaluate critical power in cycling.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Durability as an index of endurance exercise performance: Methodological considerations.Experimental physiology · 2025Review
- The Training Intensity Distribution of Marathon Runners Across Performance Levels.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Associations of Laboratory- and Field- derived Measurements of Critical Power with W'-kinetics during 40-km Cycling Time Trial Performances.International journal of exercise science · 2025Article
- Comparison of Physiological Responses between a W´BAL-INT Training Model and a Critical Power Test.Journal of human kinetics · 2024Article
- The Accuracy and Reliability of the Power Measurements of the TACX Neo 2T Smart Trainer and Its Agreement against the Garmin Vector 3 Pedals.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Modelling human endurance: power laws vs critical power.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- A critical review of critical power.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- Using V̇oJournal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2022Article
- Determination of Critical Power Using Different Possible Approaches among Endurance Athletes: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- Steady-stateEuropean journal of applied physiology · 2021Article
- Exercise Intensity and Pacing Pattern During a Cross-Country Olympic Mountain Bike Race.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Calculation of Critical Speed from Raw Training Data in Recreational Marathon Runners.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2020Article
- The Application of Critical Power, the Work Capacity above Critical Power (W'), and its Reconstitution: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Implications for Cycling Training Prescription.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the validity and reliability of field critical power (CP).
methodLaboratory CP tests comprised three exhaustive trials at intensities of 80, 100 and 105 % maximal aerobic power and CP results were compared with those determined from the field. Experiment 1: cyclists performed three CP field tests which comprised maximal efforts of 12, 7 and 3 min with a 30 min recovery between efforts. Experiment 2: cyclists performed 3 × 3, 3 × 7 and 3 × 12 min individual maximal efforts in a randomised order in the field. Experiment 3: the highest 3, 7 and 12 min power outputs were extracted from field training and racing data.
resultsStandard error of the estimate of CP was 4.5, 5.8 and 5.2 % for experiments 1-3, respectively. Limits of agreement for CP were -26 to 29, 26 to 53 and -34 to 44 W for experiments 1-3, respectively. Mean coefficient of variation in field CP was 2.4, 6.5 and 3.5 % for experiments 1-3, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients of the three repeated trials for CP were 0.99, 0.96 and 0.99 for experiments 1-3, respectively.
conclusionsResults suggest field-testing using the different protocols from this research study, produce both valid and reliable CP values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25260244What 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.