Int J Sports Med 2023; 44(13): 969-975
DOI: 10.1055/a-2069-2192
Training & Testing

Running Critical Power: A Comparison Of Different Theoretical Models

1   Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
,
Alberto A Ñancupil-Andrade
2   Department of Health, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile
,
3   Department of Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain
,
1   Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
4   Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile
› Author Affiliations
Fundings This project was supported by the Andalusian Sports Institute (Instituto Andaluz del Deporte, ref. 5562).
Zoom Image

Abstract

This study aimed (i) to compare the critical power (CP) and work capacity over CP (W´) values reported by the different CP models available in current analysis software packages (Golden Cheetah and Stryd platform), (ii) to locate the CP values in the power-duration curve (PDC), and (iii) to determine the influence of the CP model used on the W´ balance. Fifteen trained athletes performed four time trials (i. e., 3, 5, 10, 20 minutes) to define their PDC through different CP models: work-time (CPwork), power-1/time (CP1/time), Morton hyperbolic (CPhyp), Stryd platform (CPstryd), and Bioenergetic Golden Cheetah (CPCheetah). Three additional time trials were performed: two to locate the CP values in the PDC (30 and 60 minutes), and one to test the validity of the W’ balance model (4 minutes). Significant differences (p<0.001) were reported between models for the estimated parameters (CP, W´). CPcheetah was associated with the power output developed between 10 to 20 minutes, CP1/time, CPstryd CPwork and CPhyp. The W´ reported by the three-parameter CP models overestimated the actual 4 minutes time to exhaustion, with CPwork (0.48 [− 0.19 to 1.16] minutes); and CP1/time (0.40 [− 0.13 to 0.94] minutes) being the only valid models (p≥0.240).



Publication History

Received: 19 January 2023

Accepted: 11 March 2023

Article published online:
29 September 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany