Letter to the Editor on: “Running Critical Power: A Comparison Of Different Theoretical Models”

Dear Editor,

I read with interest the study by Ruiz-Alias et al. on different critical power models in running [1]. The study offers valuable insights into the application of critical power in running, highlighting considerable discrepancies between different methods of estimation. While the work is commendable, it leaves room for questions regarding the methodology applied and the interpretation of the results. The omission of each participant’s mean power of the trials in the study, in combination with a reluctance to share it upon request, makes it impossible for the reader to verify the results. At a bare minimum, in studies of this nature, each individual’s CP and W’, calculated using the different methods, should be made available as it offers valuable information for readers. I elaborate on my main concerns in the following. Accompanying figures are provided in an external repository [2].

Publication History

Article published online:
09 January 2024

• References

• 1 Ñancupil-Andrade AA, Pérez-Castilla A. et al. Running Critical Power: A Comparison Of Different Theoretical Models. Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 969–975
• 2 Mentzoni F. Power-duration relations and example of W’-balance methods (2023-11- 14). In Internet: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6922039.v1 (Accessed 2023-11-14)
• 3 Leo P, Spragg J, Podlogar T. et al. Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review. Eur J Appl Physiol 2022; 122: 301-316
• 4 Jones AM, Burnley M, Black MI. et al. The maximal metabolic steady state: redefining the “gold standard”. Physiol Rep 2019; 7: e14098
• 5 Muniz-Pumares D, Karsten B, Triska C. et al. Methodological approaches and related challenges associated with the determination of critical power and W. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 584-596
• 6 Skiba PF, Fulford J, Clarke DC. et al. Intramuscular determinants of the ability to recover work capacity above critical power. Eur J Appl Physiol 2015; 115: 703-713