Özet:

Predicted critical power (CP) varies up to 5-20% depending on the preferred mathematical model and different time to exhaustion intervals. Those differentiation rates related to CP estimations cause some contradictory results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between CP predictions obtained from three different exhaustion approaches (short: 2-10 minutes; medium: 2-15 minutes; long: 2-20 minutes) using five mathematical models (linear total work (CP1), linear 1/time (CP2), nonlinear 2-parameter (CP3), nonlinear 3-parameter (CP4) and exponential (CP5)), and other indices such as maximal lactate steady-state (MLSS), ventilatory threshold (VT), respiratory compensation point (RCP) and critical threshold (CT). 10 well trained male cyclists voluntarily participated in the study. VT and RCP levels of the athletes were determined by incremental ramp tests. Constant work rate exercises were applied on different days to determine maximal oxygen uptake, peak power output, MLSS, CT and CP. Obtained data were tested by validity analysis. As mathematical models and exhaustion intervals changed, the CP predictions varied up to 20%. Except the CP4, other CP estimations were higher than the work rates corresponding to the MLSS and VT (p<0.05). The CP5, which was estimated by short exhaustion interval, corresponded to the work rates belonging to the CT and RCP (p>0.05; standard error of estimate ~4% and r>0.95). Regardless of the preferred exhaustion interval, CP predictions obtained from the other mathematical models were insufficient to estimate any of anaerobic threshold indices (p<0.05). As a result, the CP5 estimated by short exhaustion interval can be used to predict the work rates corresponded to the CT and RCP. It was not appropriate to estimate the other threshold intensities by the CP. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: