Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34708276›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2022

Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review.

Peter Leo, James Spragg, Tim Podlogar, Justin S Lawley, Iñigo Mujika

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Modelling human endurance: power laws vs critical power.European journal of applied physiology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Peter LeoDivision of Performance Physiology & Prevention, Department of Sport Science, University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. peter.leo@uibk.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4501-7688
James SpraggHealth Physical Activity Lifestyle Sport Research Centre (HPALS), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Tim PodlogarFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Izola, Slovenia.
Justin S LawleyDivision of Performance Physiology & Prevention, Department of Sport Science, University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Iñigo MujikaDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Basque Country, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging trends in technological innovations, data analysis and practical applications have facilitated the measurement of cycling power output in the field, leading to improvements in training prescription, performance testing and race analysis. This review aimed to critically reflect on power profiling strategies in association with the power-duration relationship in cycling, to provide an updated view for applied researchers and practitioners. The authors elaborate on measuring power output followed by an outline of the methodological approaches to power profiling. Moreover, the deriving a power-duration relationship section presents existing concepts of power-duration models alongside exercise intensity domains. Combining laboratory and field testing discusses how traditional laboratory and field testing can be combined to inform and individualize the power profiling approach. Deriving the parameters of power-duration modelling suggests how these measures can be obtained from laboratory and field testing, including criteria for ensuring a high ecological validity (e.g. rider specialization, race demands). It is recommended that field testing should always be conducted in accordance with pre-established guidelines from the existing literature (e.g. set number of prediction trials, inter-trial recovery, road gradient and data analysis). It is also recommended to avoid single effort prediction trials, such as functional threshold power. Power-duration parameter estimates can be derived from the 2 parameter linear or non-linear critical power model: P(t) = W'/t + CP (W'-work capacity above CP; t-time). Structured field testing should be included to obtain an accurate fingerprint of a cyclist's power profile.

Indexed as

BicyclingExercise TestHumansOxygen ConsumptionPhysical EnduranceTask Performance and AnalysisAnalysisPerformancePower outputPredictionRacingTraining

Identifiers

PMID34708276
PMCPMC8783871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.