↓ Skip to main content

Differences Among Estimates of Critical Power and Anaerobic Work Capacity Derived From Five Mathematical Models and the Three-Minute All-Out Test

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Differences Among Estimates of Critical Power and Anaerobic Work Capacity Derived From Five Mathematical Models and the Three-Minute All-Out Test
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31829b576d
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Estimates of critical power (CP) and anaerobic work capacity (AWC) from the power output vs. time relationship have been derived from various mathematical models. The purpose of this study was to examine estimates of CP and AWC from the multiple work bout, 2- and 3-parameter models, and those from the 3-minute all-out CP (CP3min) test. Nine college-aged subjects performed a maximal incremental test to determine the peak oxygen consumption rate and the gas exchange threshold. On separate days, each subject completed 4 randomly ordered constant power output rides to exhaustion to estimate CP and AWC from 5 regression models (2 linear, 2 nonlinear, and 1 exponential). During the final visit, CP and AWC were estimated from the CP3min test. The nonlinear 3-parameter (Nonlinear-3) model produced the lowest estimate of CP. The exponential (EXP) model and the CP3min test were not statistically different and produced the highest estimates of CP. Critical power estimated from the Nonlinear-3 model was 14% less than those from the EXP model and the CP3min test and 4-6% less than those from the linear models. Furthermore, the Nonlinear-3 and nonlinear 2-parameter (Nonlinear-2) models produced significantly greater estimates of AWC than did the linear models and CP3min. The current findings suggested that the Nonlinear-3 model may provide estimates of CP and AWC that more accurately reflect the asymptote of the power output vs. time relationship, the demarcation of the heavy and severe exercise intensity domains, and anaerobic capabilities than will the linear models and CP3min test.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 19%
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 70 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 34 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#11,459,216
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#4,534
of 7,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,299
of 266,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#81
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.