Validity and reliability of critical power field testing.

PURPOSE: To test the validity and reliability of field critical power (CP). METHOD: Laboratory 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. RESULTS: Standard 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. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest field-testing using the different protocols from this research study, produce both valid and reliable CP values.

Changes in insulin sensitivity in response to different modalities of exercise: a review of the evidence.

Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent condition with complications including blindness and kidney failure. Evidence suggests that type 2 diabetes is associated with a sedentary lifestyle, with physical activity demonstrated to increase glucose uptake and improve glycaemic control. Proposed mechanisms for these effects include the maintenance and improvement of insulin sensitivity via increased glucose transporter type four production. The optimal mode, frequency, intensity and duration of exercise for the improvement of insulin sensitivity are however yet to be identified. We review the evidence from 34 published studies addressing the effects on glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity of aerobic exercise, resistance training and both combined. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported for each intervention and meta-analysis presented. The quality of the evidence is tentatively graded, and recommendations for best practice proposed.

High agreement between laboratory and field estimates of critical power in cycling.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of agreement between laboratory-based estimates of critical power (CP) and results taken from a novel field test. Subjects were fourteen trained cyclists (age 40±7 yrs; body mass 70.2±6.5 kg; VO2max 3.8±0.5 L · min-1). Laboratory-based CP was estimated from 3 constant work-rate tests at 80%, 100% and 105% of maximal aerobic power (MAP). Field-based CP was estimated from 3 all-out tests performed on an outdoor velodrome over fixed durations of 3, 7 and 12 min. Using the linear work limit (Wlim) vs. time limit (Tlim) relation for the estimation of CP1 values and the inverse time (1/t) vs. power (P) models for the estimation of CP2 values, field-based CP1 and CP2 values did not significantly differ from laboratory-based values (234±24.4 W vs. 234±25.5 W (CP1); P<0.001; limits of agreement [LOA], -10.98-10.8 W and 236±29.1 W vs. 235±24.1 W (CP2); P<0.001; [LOA], -13.88-17.3 W. Mean prediction errors for laboratory and field estimates were 2.2% (CP) and 27% (W'). Data suggest that employing all-out field tests lasting 3, 7 and 12 min has potential utility in the estimation of CP.

The 3-min test does not provide a valid measure of critical power using the SRM isokinetic mode.

Recent datas suggest that the mean power over the final 30 s of a 3-min all-out test is equivalent to Critical Power (CP) using the linear ergometer mode. The purpose of the present study was to identify whether this is also true using an "isokinetic mode". 13 cyclists performed: 1) a ramp test; 2) three 3-min all-out trials to establish End Power (EP) and work done above EP (WEP); and 3) 3 constant work rate trials to determine CP and the work done above CP (W') using the work-time (=CP1/W'1) and 1/time (=CP2/W'2) models. Coefficient of variation in EP was 4.45% between trials 1 and 2, and 4.29% between trials 2 and 3. Limits of Agreement for trials 1-2 and trials 2-3 were -2±38 W. Significant differences were observed between EP and CP1 (+37 W, P<0.001), between WEP and W'1(-6.2 kJ, P=0.001), between EP and CP2 (+31 W, P<0.001) and between WEP and W'2 (-4.2 kJ, P=0.006). Average SEE values for EP-CP1 and EP-CP2 of 7.1% and 6.6% respectively were identified. Data suggest that using an isokinetic mode 3-min all-out test, while yielding a reliable measure of EP, does not provide a valid measure of CP.

Instrumental emotion regulation in sport: relationships between beliefs about emotion and emotion regulation strategies used by athletes.

This study examined relationships between beliefs about emotions (meta-emotion beliefs), emotion regulation strategies, and pre-competition emotional states using an instrumental model of emotion regulation. Three hundred and sixty runners reported meta-beliefs about the influence of anxiety and/or anger on performance, completed a short emotion scale, and reported their use of emotion regulation strategies. Results indicated that 55 runners (15%) reported meta-emotion beliefs that strategies aimed at increasing anxiety and/or anger would help performance while 305 runners (85%) reported beliefs that strategies intended to reduce the same emotions before competition would help performance. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that people who believe that anxiety or anger is good for performance reported high anger, but not anxiety, before performance. They also reported using strategies to increase unpleasant emotions. We suggest that further research is needed to examine relationships between meta-emotion beliefs and the use of emotion regulation strategies in sport.