HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 93/3/383    most recent expphysiol.2007.039883v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Vanhatalo, A. Articles by Burnley, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vanhatalo, A. Articles by Burnley, M.

¹ Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3FD, UK ² Chelsea School Research Centre, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, East Sussex BN20 7SP, UK

The purpose of this study was to assess whether end-test power output (EP, synonymous with ‘critical power’) and the work done above EP (WEP) during a 3 min all-out cycling test against a fixed resistance were affected by the manipulation of cadence or pacing. Nine subjects performed a ramp test followed, in random order, by three cadence trials (in which flywheel resistance was manipulated to achieve end-test cadences which varied by 20 r.p.m.) and two pacing trials (30 s at 100 or 130% of maximal ramp test power, followed by 2.5 min all-out effort against standard resistance). End-test power output was calculated as the mean power output over the final 30 s and the WEP as the power–time integral over 180 s for each trial. End-test power output was unaffected by reducing cadence below that of the ‘standard test’ but was reduced by 10 W on the adoption of a higher cadence [244 ± 41 W for high cadence (at an end-test cadence of 95 ± 7 r.p.m.), 254 ± 40 W for the standard test (at 88 ± 6 r.p.m.) and 251 ± 38 W for low cadence (at 77 ± 5 r.p.m.)]. Pacing over the initial 30 s of the test had no effect on the EP or WEP estimates in comparison with the standard trial. The WEP was significantly higher in the low cadence trial (16.2 ± 4.4 kJ) and lower in the high cadence trial (12.9 ± 3.6 kJ) than in the standard test (14.2 ± 3.7 kJ). Thus, EP is robust to the manipulation of power profile but is reduced by adopting cadences higher than ‘standard’. While the WEP is robust to initial pacing applied, it is sensitive to even relatively minor changes in cadence.

(Received 10 August 2007; accepted after revision 17 October 2007; first published online 19 October 2007)
Corresponding author M. Burnley: Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Carwyn James Building, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3FD, UK. Email: mhb{at}aber.ac.uk