Comparison of the critical power estimated by the best fit method and the maximal lactate steady state

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridALP, Egemen/0000-0002-5915-8625
dc.authoridAs, Hakan/0000-0002-1848-6251
dc.authoridCABUK, REFIK/0000-0002-3682-3135
dc.contributor.authorAs, H.
dc.contributor.authorCabuk, R.
dc.contributor.authorNorouzi, M.
dc.contributor.authorBalci, G. A.
dc.contributor.authorOzkaya, O.
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-04T18:49:24Z
dc.date.available2024-10-04T18:49:24Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentBayburt Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAims. - Maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) is accepted as the gold standard method to deter-mine the upper boundary of heavy exercise domain, while critical power (CP) is one of the most practical ways to estimate the lower boundary of severe exercise domain. However, it has been recently discussed that the upper boundary of heavy-intensity exercise domain does not equal to lower boundary of severe-intensity exercise domain. Conversely, the best individual fit method (CPfit) has recently been suggested as an accurate estimation of CP. However, there has not been a comparative evaluation of CPfit versus MLSS. The aim of this study was, therefore, to focus on the comparison of CPfit with MLSS. Methods. - Eleven well-trained male cyclists participated in this study. Following the determination of maximal oxygen uptake, MLSS was determined through the performance of standard 30-minute constant work rate exercises performed on separate days. Cyclists performed four constant-load exercises lasting 2-15 minutes on different days. The data were then fitted to mathematical models to obtain CPfit. Bland-Altman plot with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) was used to measure agreement between CPfit and MLSS. Results. - According to the findings, CPfit overestimated the work rate corresponding to MLSS (300 +/- 38 W vs. 265 +/- 39 W; P = 0.001; effect size = 3.28). Bland-Altman results showed high LoA (14 to 55.9 W) and very high bias (bias = 35 +/- 10.7 W; P = 0.001; r: 0.96) between CPfit and MLSS. Conclusion. - CPfit was not identical for MLSS.(c) 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEge Uni- versity Scientific Research Projects Funds [17]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe present study was financially supported by Ege Uni- versity Scientific Research Projects Funds (project code: 17.BESYO.003) .en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.scispo.2021.12.009
dc.identifier.endpage206en_US
dc.identifier.issn0765-1597
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85138763988en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage197en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2021.12.009
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12403/3109
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000989481900001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier France-Editions Scientifiques Medicales Elsevieren_US
dc.relation.ispartofScience & Sportsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAerobic capacityen_US
dc.subjectEnduranceen_US
dc.subjectHeavy-intensityen_US
dc.subjectMathematical estimationsen_US
dc.subjectSevere-intensity domainen_US
dc.titleComparison of the critical power estimated by the best fit method and the maximal lactate steady stateen_US
dc.title.alternativeComparaison entre la puissance critique estimée par la méthode bien-être et l’état d’équilibre maximal du lactateen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu