ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2022
Effect of protocol on peak power output in continuous incremental cycle exercise tests.
Article 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional detection of external iliac artery endofibrosis in a cyclist: integrating performance metrics and vascular imaging, a case study.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Modelling human endurance: power laws vs critical power.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePeak power output ([Formula: see text]peak) in an incremental exercise test (EXT) is considered an important predictor of performance for cyclists. However, [Formula: see text]peak is protocol dependent. The purpose of this study was to model the effect of EXT design on [Formula: see text]peak.
methodsAn adapted version of a previously developed mathematical model was used. For the purpose of validity testing, we compared predicted [Formula: see text]peak differences (predicted Δ[Formula: see text]peak) with actual Δ[Formula: see text]peak found in sports science literature.
resultsThe model quantified Δ[Formula: see text]peak between 36 EXT designs with stage durations in the range 1-5 min and increments in the range 10-50 W. Predicted Δ[Formula: see text]peak and actual Δ[Formula: see text]peak across a wide range of performance levels of cyclists were in good agreement. Depending on the specific combination of increment and stage duration, [Formula: see text]peak may be widely different or equivalent. A minimum difference in increment (5 W) or in stage duration (1 min) already results in significantly different [Formula: see text]peak. In EXTs having the same ratio between increment and stage duration, [Formula: see text]peak in the EXT with the shortest stage duration or the greatest increment is significantly higher. Tests combining 15 W, 25 W or 40 W increments with 2, 3 and 4 min stage durations, respectively, are 'special' in that their [Formula: see text]peak approximates the power output associated with maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]).
conclusionsThe modeling results allow comparison of [Formula: see text]peak between widely different EXT designs. Absolute performance level does not affect Δ[Formula: see text]peak. [Formula: see text]peak15/2, [Formula: see text]peak25/3 and [Formula: see text]peak40/4 constitute a practical physiologic reference for performance diagnostics and exercise intensity prescription.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34993576What 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.