Purpose
Peak power output (\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak) in an incremental exercise test (EXT) is considered an important predictor of performance for cyclists. However, \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak is protocol dependent. The purpose of this study was to model the effect of EXT design on \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak.
Methods
An adapted version of a previously developed mathematical model was used. For the purpose of validity testing, we compared predicted \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak differences (predicted Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak) with actual Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak found in sports science literature.
Results
The model quantified Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak between 36 EXT designs with stage durations in the range 1–5 min and increments in the range 10–50 W. Predicted Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak and actual Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak across a wide range of performance levels of cyclists were in good agreement. Depending on the specific combination of increment and stage duration, \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)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 \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak. In EXTs having the same ratio between increment and stage duration, \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)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 \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak approximates the power output associated with maximal oxygen uptake (\({\text{P}}-{\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_{2} \max\)).
Conclusions
The modeling results allow comparison of \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak between widely different EXT designs. Absolute performance level does not affect Δ\({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak. \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak15/2, \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak25/3 and \({\dot{{\rm W}}} \)peak40/4 constitute a practical physiologic reference for performance diagnostics and exercise intensity prescription.
