Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Journal of Sport Science logoLink to European Journal of Sport Science
. 2024 Mar 12;24(4):449–457. doi: 10.1002/ejsc.12077

The intensity rather than the quantity of prior work determines the subsequent downward shift in the power duration relationship in professional cyclists

James Spragg 1,✉, Peter Leo 2, Andrea Giorgi 3, Borja Martinez Gonzalez 4, Jeroen Swart 1
PMCID: PMC11235642

Abstract

To determine whether the intensity of prior work is an important contributing factor to the downward shift in the power‐duration relationship. Data were collected from 14 professional cyclists (height 176.3 cm ± 7, body mass 67.3 kg ± 5, CP, 5.3 W·kg−1 ± 0.21). Participants conducted a power profile test three times consisting of a 15s, a 3 min and a 12 min maximal effort trial utilizing a standardized climb. On the first occasion, the power profile test was conducted in a fresh state (Fresh), the subsequent power profile tests were conducted after two different fatiguing protocols: ∼2000 kJ of work at <70% of CP (low‐intensity continuous (LIC)) and following a novel fatiguing protocol consisting of 5 × 8 min at 105%–110% of CP (HI). Participants conducted significantly less work in HI compared with LIC, however, 1 and 15s power were significantly lower post‐HI than LIC. The 3‐min power output was significantly lower post‐HI than Fresh but not significantly lower in LIC than Fresh. The 12‐min power output and CP were not significantly different between conditions. These findings demonstrate the importance of the intensity of prior work in the resultant downward shift in the power‐duration relationship, especially for shorter‐duration efforts and suggest that the total amount of work done is alone not sufficient to describe prior work.

Keywords: Endurance, fatigue, performance

Highlights

  • Professional cyclists demonstrate different levels of durability dependent upon the intensity of prior work.

  • Total work is not sufficient to quantify prior work when assessing durability.

  • It is possible to differentiate between professional cyclists by their degree of durability to prior work including work above the critical power.

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to the prolonged nature of professional cycling races, professional cyclists are exposed to high workloads during competition (Sanders et al., 2019). As a result, research in professional cycling populations has recently focused on ‘fatigue resistance’ or ‘durability’ as an important component of performance (Maunder et al., 2021; Leo et al., 2020; van et al., 2021; Muriel, Mateo‐March, et al., 2021; Muriel, Valenzuela, et al., 2021). The power output values professional cyclists are able to produce fall significantly as the amount of prior completed work increases (Leo et al., 2020; Muriel, Valenzuela, et al., 2021; van et al., 2021). This phenomenon has been coined a ‘downward shift’ in the power‐duration relationship (Leo et al., 2020). Importantly, this same body of research has demonstrated that it is the power output values that professional cyclists can produce in key moments of the race. For example, the power produced in the sprint to the finish line, rather than the maximal sprint power output produced during a race is a key determinant of performance (Leo et al., 2020; van et al., 2021). However, a limitation of the published literature is that, although the amount of prior accumulated work and the resultant downward shift in the power‐duration relationship have been reported; the intensity at which this work has been accumulated has not been considered in an elite cycling population (Leo et al., 2021). It may well be the case that accumulating the same total workload at differing intensities induces a differing magnitude of downward shift in the power‐duration relationship. Indeed, in moderately trained cyclists, it has been shown that prior cycling exercise impairs subsequent time to exhaustion performance in an intensity‐specific manner (Azevedo et al., 2021; Ferguson et al., 2007; Fullerton et al., 2021; Parker Simpson et al., 2012; Vanhatalo et al., 2009). The higher the prior intensity, the greater the reduction in time to exhaustion that is, the downward shift in the power‐duration relationship is greater when prior work is completed at higher intensities. Given the differing metabolic (Black et al., 2017), neuromuscular (Brownstein et al., 2021) and perceptual responses (Taylor et al., 2022) across the exercise intensity domains it could be expected that these findings could be extrapolated to well‐trained and professional cycling populations however, this hypothesis remains untested.

Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the impact on the power‐duration relationship of the intensity at which prior work is completed. This may provide insights into both the underlying physiology of fatigue in professional cyclists and influence the tactics that teams and athletes adopt to improve performance in key moments of a race. We hypothesize that higher‐intensity work will induce a larger downward shift in the power‐duration relationship than lower‐intensity work even when the overall amount of completed work is matched. If this is indeed the case, then a secondary aim of this study is to investigate whether a fatigue classification system can be developed that allows professional athletes to be classified by durability.

2. METHODS

2.1. Participants

14 male cyclists participated in the study (height 176.3 cm ± 6.7, body mass 67.3 kg ± 5.0, CP, 5.3 W·kg−1 ± 0.2). Based on their level of competition and training history participants were classified as Tier 3 or 4 Elite/International (Mckay et al., 2022). All participants were members of a UCI Continental or ProTeam. In any cases of illness or injury participants were excluded from the analysis. Participants received an oral and written explanation of the aims of the study and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board at the University of Cape Town and followed the principles as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Protocol overview

A power profile test (see below) was conducted three times utilizing a standardized climb (average 5.5% gradient) with an ambient temperature of between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius. On the first occasion the power profile test was conducted in a fresh state (Fresh), the subsequent power profile tests were conducted in a randomised order after two different fatiguing protocols; MLIC and HI (see below). It was important to standardize the gradient of the climb as the gradient has been shown to influence power output values. The 5.5% value is slightly below that value that has been shown to give the highest power output values in professional cycling (6%–7%) (Valenzuela et al., 2022).

2.3. Power profile test (fresh)

Each power profile test consisted of a 15 s (where a 1 s maximal power output was also recorded), a 3‐min and a 12‐min maximal effort trial. The 15 s and 3‐min trials were interspersed with 10‐min of active recovery whereas the 3‐min and 12‐min efforts were interspersed with 40‐min of active recovery (Simpson et al., 2017). During both recovery bouts, the Borg CR10 scale (Borg, 2001) of perceived exertion was used to guide exercise intensity. Participants were instructed to not exceed an RPE of 2 out of 10 (corresponding to the verbal anchor of “light exertion”) before proceeding to the subsequent effort. Prior to each trial participants were encouraged to produce the highest possible workload. In the 3‐ and 12‐min trials participants were asked to maintain a cadence between 80 and 100 revolutions per minute (rev·min−1). This range allowed the cyclists to perform at the typical freely chosen cadence for optimal power production in professional cyclists (Foss et al., 2005).

2.4. Fatiguing protocols

Following the initial power profile test participants undertook two differing fatiguing protocols in a randomised order prior to repeating the power profile test. The fatiguing protocols consisted of a low‐intensity continuous (LIC) protocol and a repeated high‐intensity (HI) protocol. Participants refrained from exhaustive exercise during the 24 h prior to all testing. There was a minimum of 72 h between all tests. Carbohydrate intake was standardised during all testing at 90 g·hr−1 with a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose via both energy drinks and gels. Participants refrained from consuming caffeine during all testing protocols. In addition to the standardised carbohydrate, intake participants were free to drink water ad libitum.

2.5. Low‐intensity continuous protocol

Participants were instructed to complete ∼2000 kJ of work at an intensity below 70% of their individual CP; determined from the initial ‘fresh’ power profile test. 2000 kJ was chosen as previous research has shown a significant downward shift in the power‐duration relationship after 2000 kJ of work in a similar population (Leo et al., 2020). Participants utilized a self‐selected cadence during the continuous low‐intensity exercise.

2.6. Repeated high‐intensity protocol

Participants were instructed to accumulate ∼2000 kJ of work via 20 min at <70% of their CP proceeded by 5 × 8 min at 105%–110% of their respective CP interspersed with 8 min of recovery in which participants were instructed to not exceed an RPE of 2 out of 10 (corresponding to the verbal anchor of “light exertion”). These efforts were undertaken on a standardised climb. Participants were free to utilize their own self‐selected cadence during the fatiguing protocol. This same protocol has been shown to induce a significant downward shift in the power duration relationship (Spragg et al., 2023). The W'bal model (Skiba et al., 2012) was used to ensure that W' was completely replenished prior to participants commencing the power profile test. This was accomplished using commercially available software (Golden Cheetah, version 3.6) using the CP and W' values obtained from the fresh power profile test.

2.7. Power output data

Participants completed all testing on their personal preferred road bike. Power output was recorded using a mobile power meter fitted to the individual's bike; each individual participant used the same power meter throughout all their testing. A ‘zero‐offset’ was performed prior to each day of testing using the device calibration function in a standard manufacturer‐specified protocol. Power output data were visually checked by two authors using commercially available software (Golden Cheetah, version 3.6) and any data flagged as potentially erroneous by both authors was excluded from the analysis.

2.8. Deriving CP and W′ estimates

As only two values were used in the calculation of CP and W′ values there will be a non‐significant difference between CP and W′ values independent of the CP model used (Mattioni Maturana et al., 2018). Resultantly, as per the original validation of this approach (Simpson et al., 2017), power output values from the 3 and 12 min maximum effort trials were plotted against 1/t (t = the corresponding duration) to linearize the power‐duration relationship (Whipp et al., 1981). A least sum of squares linear regression was then applied. The intercept of the regression line with the y‐axis represented CP and the slope of the regression line represented W'. The following equation can therefore be applied:

P=W′×1t+CP (1)

Equation (1), P = power output (w), t = time (s).

2.9. Durability classification

To classify participants according to their durability reference normative values for the change in power output after ∼2000 kJ of work were derived from Mateo March et al. (Mateo‐March et al., 2022). As Mateo March et al. normalized work done to body mass, the values post 35 kJ·kg−1 were selected as these approximated the 2000 kJ work in the current study given the 67 kg mean body mass across participants. Values from ProTeam athletes were selected as these matched the current participant population. As the exact durations reported by Mateo March et al. do not match those used in the current study the closest applicable duration was used. Athletes were deemed to be fatigue resistant when they were in the 25th percentile, fatigable when in the 50th percentile and semi‐fatigable in between the 25th and 50th percentiles.

These normative values are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Normative fatigue values—adapted from Mateo March et al. p = percentile.

P25 P25‐50 P50
15 s >99.1% 95%–99.1% <95%
3‐min >96.8% 94.5%–96.8% <94.5%
12‐min >99.4% 94.5%–99.4% <94.5%
Open in a new tab

Fatigued power outputs for 15 s and 3‐ and 12‐min from both LIC and HI were then expressed as a percentage of fresh values and classified as either Fatigue resistance, Semi‐Fatigable or Fatigable.

Based on these classifications participants were classified into three groups.

  • 1)

    fatigue‐resistant; no P50 values

  • 2)

    semi‐fatigable; P50 values after HI only

  • 3)

    fatigue‐sensitive; P50 values after HI and LIC.

2.10. Statistical analyses

All values are expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence intervals or mean difference (Δ). Normal distribution was tested using Shapiro–Wilk (p > 0.05). Statistical significance was established at p ≤ 0.05 (2‐tailed test). Differences between prior complete work between LIC and HI were assessed using a paired sample t‐test. Differences in power profile data between conditions were assessed using a 1‐way repeated‐measures analysis of variance with a post‐hoc Tukey procedure. All statistical analyses and graphical illustrations were conducted in Prism 9 (GraphPad, Software LLC, San Diego, version 9.3.1 (350))

3. RESULTS

3.1. Prior work

Completed work prior to LIC and HI were 1985 ± 242 kJ and 1878 ± 340 kJ respectively. Work completed in LIC was significantly greater than in HI (Δ107 kJ, p = 0.045) (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Prior work to the low‐intensity continuous (LIC) and high‐intensity (HI) fatiguing protocols. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns = not significant.

3.2. Power output

Power output values after LIC and HI are reported in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Power output values from Fresh and after low‐intensity continuous (LIC) and high‐intensity (HI) fatiguing protocols.

1 s 15 s 3 min 12 min
Participant Fresh LIC HI Fresh LIC HI Fresh LIC HI Fresh LIC HI
1 1184 W 1101 W 1017 W 1039 W 982 W 936 W 455 W 466 W 464 W 367 W 392 W 395 W
2 999 W 923 W 877 W 845 W 807 W 655 W 422 W 411 W 409 W 339 W 334 W 325 W
3 1324 W 1245 W 1187 W 1001 W 979 W 894 W 502 W 468 W 475 W 394 W 369 W 394 W
4 1258 W 1104 W 1062 W 998 W 884 W 767 W 508 W 488 W 512 W 395 W 397 W 398 W
5 1354 W 1426 W 1275 W 1078 W 1098 W 932 W 478 W 459 W 457 W 389 W 389 W 389 W
6 1239 W 1239 W 1079 W 1056 W 1083 W 914 W 511 W 471 W 479 W 389 W 367 W 390 W
7 904 W 867 W 785 W 785 W 775 W 645 W 422 W 414 W 431 W 343 W 357 W 361 W
8 1160 W 1127 W 1105 W 948 W 1026 W 949 W 527 W 490 W 527 W 416 W 399 W 416 W
9 938 W 909 W 787 W 784 W 728 W 690 W 475 W 437 W 439 W 393 W 378 W 371 W
10 1255 W 1238 W 1099 W 1116 W 1122 W 1128 W 502 W 522 W 476 W 426 W 430 W 428 W
11 1229 W 1267 W 1197 W 1077 W 960 W 896 W 512 W 505 W 510 W 391 W 391 W 393 W
12 1110 W 1109 W 1099 W 944 W 930 W 921 W 494 W 505 W 496 W 375 W 376 W 377 W
13 1095 W 1080 W 1075 W 906 W 900 W 854 W 513 W 510 W 503 W 417 W 411 W 404 W
14 1172 W 1059 W 1103 W 858 W 886 W 867 W 540 W 540 W 512 W 425 W 417 W 421 W
Mean 1159 W 1121 W 1053 W 960 W 940 W 861 W 490 W 478 W 478 W 390 W 386 W 390 W
SD 137 155 145 111 120 132 36 39 35 27 25 26
Open in a new tab

1 s power output was not significantly different after LIC compared with Fresh (Δ38 W, p = 0.08). 1 s power output was significantly lower after HI compared with Fresh (Δ105 W, p < 0.001) and after HI compared with LIC (Δ68 W, p = 0.003) (Figure 2A). Likewise, 15 s power output was not significantly different after LIC compared with Fresh (Δ20 W, p = 0.389) however 15 s power output was significantly lower after HI compared to Fresh (Δ99 W, p = 0.001) and after HI compared with LIC (Δ79 W, p < 0.001) (figure 2B). 3 min power output was not significantly different after LIC compared with Fresh (Δ13 W, p = 0.080) nor after HI compared with after LIC (Δ0 W, p = 0.999). However, 3 min power output was significantly lower after HI compared with Fresh (Δ12 W, p = 0.034) (figure 2C). There were no significant differences in 12 min power output between LIC, HI or Fresh (Δ 0–4 W p > 0.05) (figure 2D).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Power output in the power profile test in Fresh and following low‐intensity continuous (LIC) and high‐intensity (HI) fatiguing protocols. (A) 1s, (B) 15s, (C) 3 min power output, (D) 12 min power output. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns = not significant.

3.3. Critical power and W′

There were no significant differences in CP between conditions (Figure 3A). Likewise, there was no significant difference in W' after LIC compared with Fresh (Δ 2.126 kJ, p = 0.065) nor between LIC and HI (Δ 0.857 kJ, p = 0.76). However, W' was significantly lower after HI compared with Fresh (Δ 2.983 kJ, p = 0.008) (figure 3B).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Calculated CP and W′ in Fresh and following low‐intensity continuous (LIC) and high‐intensity (HI) fatiguing protocols; (A) CP, (B) W′. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ns = not significant.

3.4. Durability classification

Three participants could be classified as fatigue resistance, four participants as semi‐fatigable and seven as fatigable. Individual values are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Individual durability classifications.

15 s 3‐min 12‐min
Participant MIC HI MIC HI MIC HI Classification
1 95% 90% 102% 102% 107% 108% Fatigable
2 96% 78% 97% 97% 99% 96% Semi‐fatigable
3 98% 89% 93% 95% 94% 100% Fatigable
4 89% 77% 96% 101% 101% 101% Fatigable
5 102% 86% 96% 96% 100% 100% Semi‐fatigable
6 103% 87% 92% 94% 94% 100% Fatigable
7 99% 82% 98% 102% 104% 105% Semi‐fatigable
8 108% 100% 93% 100% 96% 100% Fatigable
9 93% 88% 92% 92% 96% 94% Fatigable
10 101% 101% 104% 95% 101% 100% Fatigue resistant
11 89% 83% 99% 100% 100% 101% Fatigable
12 99% 98% 102% 100% 100% 101% Fatigue resistant
13 99% 94% 99% 98% 99% 97% Semi‐fatigable
14 103% 101% 100% 95% 98% 99% Fatigue resistant
Open in a new tab

Note: White box = 10th percentile, light gray = 10‐50th percentile, dark gray = 50th percentile.

4. DISCUSSION

The main findings of the present study are that the intensity of prior work is an important component when interpreting the fatigue‐induced downward shift in the power‐duration relationship. This is an important consideration as research in cycling into durability has thus far only quantified prior work via the amount of work done (Leo et al., 2020; Muriel, Mateo‐March, et al., 2021; van et al., 2021). In the present study at a group level a significantly greater downward shift, compared to Fresh, was displayed in 1s, 15s after HI than LIC despite participants performing significantly less work in HI compared with LIC. W′ was significantly reduced following HI but not LIC. Therefore mentioned findings suggest that quantifying prior work simply by the energy expenditure may not be sufficient to quantify the describe prior work.

Interestingly, there was a much greater drop in shorter duration higher power outputs between LIC and HI. Producing these higher power outputs may require greater recruitment of type IIa and IIx fibers compared with lower power outputs (Altenburg et al., 2007). As exercise intensity increases the level of glycogen depletion in less oxidative muscle fibers increases (Vøllestad et al., 1985). In HI, participants completed 40 min of exercise in the severe intensity exercise domain. Previous work has reported that there is a downward shift in the power‐duration relationship in moderately trained athletes after as little as 2 h of exercise in the heavy exercise intensity domain (Clark et al., 2018), however, this was mitigated by exogenous carbohydrate intake. This suggests that the downward shift is likely the result of glycogen depletion (Vigh‐Larsen et al., 2021). However, in the present study, despite a carbohydrate intake that meets current recommendations for elite athletes (90 g·hr−1) and is representative of the fueling reported in professional cycling events (Impey et al., 2018), some participants displayed a reduction in power outputs after 2000 kJ of work at <70% of CP.

One possible explanation of the differences post LIC may be related to some athletes exercising above and some below, the moderate‐heavy exercise intensity domain border. Recent work has suggested that this threshold is important in terms of the magnitude of neuromuscular fatigue that is induced (Brownstein et al., 2022). 70% of CP was chosen as unpublished data from our lab suggests that the lowest percentage of CP at which the moderate‐heavy exercise intensity domain border occurs in professional cyclists is 75%. Thus, it was assumed that at 70% of CP, all athletes would be exercising within the moderate exercise intensity domain. However, it was not verified in the current study that all athletes were indeed exercising in the moderate exercise intensity domain during the LIC fatiguing protocol.

Another possible explanation, particularly for the drop seen in short‐term power outputs is that prolonged exercise, even in the moderate exercise intensity domain it has been demonstrated that cyclists experience high levels of central fatigue (Kremenic et al., 2009) and that as a result maximal voluntary contraction is progressively reduced during even continuous moderate‐intensity cycling exercise (Lepers et al., 2002).

However, there appear to be considerable inter‐individual differences in how athletes fatigue. Some athletes appear to be better able to maintain longer duration power outputs after both HI and LIC whereas some athletes only see reductions in sprint power after both HI and LIC but no other changes in their power profile. This suggests that different athletes may be more or less susceptible to different fatigue mechanics even when exercise is intensity matched.

These findings are in agreement with other work that suggested that there are rider‐type differences in durability with sprinters better able to maintain sprint power whereas climbers are better able to maintain longer duration power outputs (van et al., 2021). Whether these are trained characteristics or a product of the physiology from which these specialisations are derived is unclear.

Data from the present study appears to suggest that athletes can be classified by durability into 3 main fatigue typologies; 1) fatigue‐resistant; only a minimal drop in the power‐duration relationship after both HI and LIC (Figure 4A), 2) semi‐fatigable; a drop in power outputs after HI only (Figures 4B and 3) fatigue‐sensitive; a downward shift after both HI and LIC (figure 4C).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

The three typical fatigue profiles—data derived from three participants. (A) fatigue resistant, (B) semi‐fatigable, (C) fatigue‐sensitive. The power‐duration relationship was modeled using the anaerobic power reserve and CP model as described by Leo and colleagues (Leo et al., 2021).

However, some of the inter‐individual differences may be related to fiber‐type recruitment and the magnitude of glycogen depletion that individual athletes experience during intermittent severe‐intensity exercise (Clark et al., 2019). Interestingly, a post hoc analysis revealed there is no relationship between fresh 1 s, CP and W' and the magnitude of the downward shift in the power‐duration relationship. This suggests that durability or fatigue resistance may be a component of performance perhaps independent of fresh values (Jones et al., 2021). However, it should be noted that these profiles may only emerge when the intensity of prior work is normalized to the CP of the individual. In the present study, the work bouts were set at 70% and 105%–110% of CP. Research has suggested that exercise across the differing exercise intensity domains may induce different levels of subsequent fatigue (Fullerton et al., 2021). However, if work isn't normalized to the individual's CP and is instead set at an absolute intensity there are likely to be differences in the downward shift in the power‐duration relationship due to individual athletes exercising at different relative intensities. These differences will be particularly notable if the absolute intensity corresponds to different exercise intensity domains (Brownstein et al., 2022). This may explain the findings of Leo and colleagues (Leo et al., 2020) who showed that U23 riders experienced a far greater downward shift in the power‐duration relationship when competing in the same race as professional athletes.

One consideration when developing individual fatigue profiles is that if an athlete is particularly fatigable, especially in shorter duration efforts, then the change in power in the 3‐min maximal trial may be greater than that seen in the 12‐min trial. There is then a possibility especially when the 1/time method is used to estimate CP and W' that the resultant fatigued CP value may come out higher than CP in a fresh state. This is because W' and CP are estimated concurrently, and their estimation is not independent. Resultantly there may be a ‘teeter‐totter’ effect whereby lower outputs in the 3 min power output trial artificially raise CP estimates. However, based on the data from this study this would appear to rather be an artifact of the estimation of CP. Two participants in the current study had higher CP values after HI compared with Fresh however the differences seen here were within the day‐to‐day coefficient of variation of the power meters used within this study (1.3% ± 0.8) (Maier et al., 2017).

One limitation of the current work is that the participants performed significantly less work in HI than in LIC. The difference in work between the conditions was due to the participant population. The power profile tests were typically completed during training camps where there was a need to balance training and formal testing. In one of these training camps, the work completed prior in LIC was greater than requested by the authors and this accounted for the differences. However, more work was completed, and yet still the participants displayed a smaller downward shift in the power‐duration relationship this imperfection in the design strengthens the argument that the intensity of exercise rather than the total amount of work is a bigger driver of the phenomenon of a downward shift in the power‐duration relationship.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the present study has demonstrated that not all work is equal in terms of the resultant downward shift in the power‐duration relationship. Higher intensity exercise appears to induce a greater downward shift in higher intensity shorter duration efforts. However, there are considerably inter‐individual differences in how athletes respond to the intensity of prior work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the professional cyclists involved in this study for their time. The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

REFERENCES

  1. Altenburg, T. M. , Degens H., Van Mechelen W., Sargeant A. J., and De Haan A.. 2007. “Recruitment of Single Muscle Fibers during Submaximal Cycling Exercise.” Journal of Applied Physiology 103(5): 1752–1756. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00496.2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Azevedo, Rafael de Almeida , Forot Jonas, Iannetta Danilo, MacInnis Martin J., Millet Guillaume Y., and Murias Juan M.. 2021. “Slight Power Output Manipulations Around the Maximal Lactate Steady State Have a Similar Impact on Fatigue in Females and Males.” Journal of Applied Physiology [Internet] 130(6): 1879–1892. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00892.2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black, Matthew I. , Jones Andrew M., Blackwell Jamie R., Bailey Stephen J., Wylie Lee J., McDonagh Sinead T. J., Thompson Christopher, et al. 2017. “Muscle Metabolic and Neuromuscular Determinants of Fatigue during Cycling in Different Exercise Intensity Domains.” Journal of Applied Physiology 122(3): 446–459. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00942.2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borg, G. 2001. “Borg’s Range Model and Scales.” International Journal of Sport Psychology 32(2): 110–126. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brownstein, Callum G. , Millet Guillaume Y., and Thomas Kevin. 2021. “Neuromuscular Responses to Fatiguing Locomotor Exercise.” Acta Physiologica 231(2). 10.1111/apha.13533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brownstein, Callum G. , Pastor Frederic Sabater, Mira José, Murias Juan M., and Millet Guillaume Y.. 2022. “Power Output Manipulation from Below to Above the Gas Exchange Threshold Results in Exacerbated Performance Fatigability.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise [Internet] 54(11): 1947–1960: Publish Ah. 10.1249/mss.0000000000002976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Ida E. , Vanhatalo Anni, Bailey Stephen J., Wylie Lee J., Kirby Brett S., Wilkins Brad W., and Jones Andrew M.. 2018. “Effects of Two Hours of Heavy‐Intensity Exercise on the Power‐Duration Relationship.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 50(8): 1658–1668. 10.1249/mss.0000000000001601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Ida E. , Vanhatalo Anni, Thompson Christopher, Joseph Charlotte, Black Matthew I., Blackwell Jamie R., Wylie Lee J., et al. 2019. “Effects of Two Hours of Heavy‐Intensity Exercise on the Power‐Duration Relationship.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 127(3): 726–736. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00207.2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferguson, C. , Whipp B. J., Cathcart A. J., Rossiter H. B., Turner A. P., and Ward S. A.. 2007. “Effects of Prior Very‐Heavy Intensity Exercise on Indices of Aerobic Function and High‐Intensity Exercise Tolerance.” Journal of Applied Physiology 103(3): 812–822. 10.1152/japplphysiol.01410.2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Foss, Øivind , and Hallén J.. 2005. “Cadence and Performance in Elite Cyclists.” European Journal of Applied Physiology 93(4): 453–462. 10.1007/s00421-004-1226-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fullerton, Madison M. , Passfield Louis, MacInnis Martin J., Iannetta Danilo, and Murias Juan M.. 2021. “Prior Exercise Impairs Subsequent Performance in an Intensity‐ and Duration‐Dependent Manner.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism [Internet] 46(8): 976–985. 10.1139/apnm-2020-0689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Impey, Samuel G. , Hearris Mark A., Hammond Kelly M., Bartlett Jonathan D., Louis Julien, Close Graeme L., and Morton James P.. 2018. “Fuel for the Work Required: A Theoretical Framework for Carbohydrate Periodization and the Glycogen Threshold Hypothesis.” Sports Medicine [Internet] 48(5): 1031–1048. 10.1007/s40279-018-0867-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones, A. M. , Kirby B. S., Clark I. E., Rice H. M., Fulkerson E., Wylie L. J., et al. 2021. “Physiological Demands of Running at 2‐Hour Marathon Race Pace.” Journal of Applied Physiology 130(2):369–379. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00647.2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kremenic, Ian J. , Glace Beth W., Ben‐Avi S. Simon, Nicholas Stephen J., and McHUGH Malachy P.. 2009. “Central Fatigue after Cycling Evaluated Using Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise [Internet] 41(7): 1461–1466. 10.1249/mss.0b013e318199eb75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Leo, P. , Spragg J., Mujika I., Giorgi A., Lorang D., Simon D., et al. 2020. “Power Profiling, Workload Characteristics, and Race Performance of U23 and Professional Cyclists During the Multistage Race Tour of the Alps.” International Journal of Sports Physiology Performance [Internet]: 1–7: Available from:. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/aop/article‐10.1123‐ijspp.2020‐0381/article‐10.1123‐ijspp.2020‐0381.xml. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Leo, Peter , Spragg James, Podlogar Tim, Lawley Justin S., and Mujika Iñigo. 2021. “Power Profiling and the Power‐Duration Relationship in Cycling: A Narrative Review.” European Journal Applied Physiology [Internet] 122(2): 301–316. 10.1007/s00421-021-04833-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lepers, Romuald , Maffiuletti Nicola A., Rochette Ludovic, Brugniaux Julien, and Millet Guillaume Y.. 2002. “Neuromuscular Fatigue during a Long‐Duration Cycling Exercise.” Journal of Applied Physiology 92(4): 1487–1493. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00880.2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Maier, Thomas , Schmid Lucas, Müller Beat, Steiner Thomas, and Wehrlin Jon. 2017. “Accuracy of Cycling Power Meters against a Mathematical Model of Treadmill Cycling.” Int J Sports Med 38(6): 456–461. 10.1055/s-0043-102945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mateo‐March, Manuel , Valenzuela Pedro L., Muriel Xabier, Gandia‐Soriano Alexis, Zabala Mikel, Lucia Alejandro, Pallares Jesús G., and Barranco‐Gil David. 2022. “The Record Power Profile of Male Professional Cyclists: Fatigue Matters.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 17(6): 926–931. 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mattioni Maturana, Felipe , Fontana Federico Y., Pogliaghi Silvia, Passfield Louis, and Murias Juan M.. 2018. “Critical Power: How Different Protocols and Models Affect its Determination.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 21(7): 742–747. 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Maunder, Ed , Seiler Stephen, Mildenhall Mathew J., Kilding Andrew E., and Plews Daniel J.. 2021. “The Importance of ‘Durability’ in the Physiological Profiling of Endurance Athletes.” Sports Medicine [Internet] 51(8): 1619–1628. 10.1007/s40279-021-01459-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mckay, A. K. A. , Stellingwerff T., Smith E. S., Martin D. T., Goosey‐tolfrey V. L., Sheppard J., et al. 2022. Defining Training and Performance Caliber: A Participant Classification Framework. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Muriel, Xabier , Mateo‐March Manuel, Valenzuela Pedro L., Zabala Mikel, Lucia Alejandro, Pallares Jesús G., and Barranco‐Gil David. 2021. “Durability and Repeatability of Professional Cyclists During a Grand Tour.” European Journal Sport Science [Internet] 22(12): 1–8. 10.1080/17461391.2021.1987528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Muriel, X. , Valenzuela P. L., Mateo‐March M., Pallarés J. G., Lucia A., and Barranco‐Gil D.. 2021. “Physical Demands and Performance Indicators in Male Professional Cyclists During a Grand Tour: WorldTour Versus ProTeam Category.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance [Internet]: 1–9: Available from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34343966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Parker Simpson, Len , Jones Andrew M., Vanhatalo Anni, and Wilkerson Daryl P.. 2012. “Influence of Initial Metabolic Rate on the Power–Duration Relationship for All‐Out Exercise.” European Journal Applied Physiology [Internet] 112(7): 2467–2473. 10.1007/s00421-011-2214-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sanders, Dajo , van Erp Teun, and de Koning Jos J.. 2019. “Intensity and Load Characteristics of Professional Road Cycling: Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Races.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 14(3): 296–302. 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Simpson, Len Parker , and Kordi Mehdi. 2017. “Comparison of Critical Power and W′ Derived from 2 or 3 Maximal Tests.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12(6): 825–830. 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Skiba, Philip Friere , Chidnok Weerapong, Vanhatalo Anni, and Jones Andrew M.. 2012. “Modeling the Expenditure and Reconstitution of Work Capacity Above Critical Power.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44(8): 1526–1532. 10.1249/mss.0b013e3182517a80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Spragg, James , Leo Peter, and Swart Jeroen. 2023. “The Relationship between Physiological Characteristics and Durability in Male Professional Cyclists.” Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise [Internet] 55(1): 133–140. 10.1249/mss.0000000000003024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Taylor, Ian M. , Whiteley Summer, and Ferguson Richard A.. 2022. “Disturbance of Desire‐GOAL Motivational Dynamics During Different Exercise Intensity Domains.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports [Internet] 32(4): 798–806. 10.1111/sms.14129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Valenzuela, Pedro L. , Mateo‐March Manuel, Muriel Xabier, Zabala Mikel, Lucia Alejandro, Pallares Jesús G., and Barranco‐Gil David. 2022. “Road Gradient and Cycling Power: An Observational Study in Male Professional Cyclists.” Journal Science Medicine Sport [Internet] 25(12): 1017–1022. 10.1016/j.jsams.2022.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. van Erp, T. , Sanders D., and Lamberts R. P.. 2021. “Maintaining Power Output with Accumulating Levels of Work Done Is a Key Determinant for Success in Professional Cycling.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 53(9):1903–1910. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Vanhatalo, Anni , and Jones Andrew M.. 2009. “Influence of Prior Sprint Exercise on the Parameters of the ‘All‐Out Critical Power Test’ in Men.” Experimental Physiology [Internet] 94(2): 255–263. 10.1113/expphysiol.2008.045229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Vigh‐Larsen, Jeppe F. , Ørtenblad Niels, Spriet Lawrence L., Overgaard Kristian, and Mohr Magni. 2021. “Muscle Glycogen Metabolism and High‐Intensity Exercise Performance: A Narrative Review.” Sports Medicine [Internet] 51(9): 1855–1874. 10.1007/s40279-021-01475-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vøllestad, Nina Køpke , and Blom Per C. S.. 1985. “Effect of Varying Exercise Intensity on Glycogen Depletion in Human Muscle Fibres.” Acta Physiologica Scandinavica [Internet] 125(3): 395–405. 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1985.tb07735.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Whipp, B. J. , Huntsman D. J., and Storer T.. 1981. “A Constant Which Determines the Duration of Tolerance to High‐Intensity Work.” Federation Proceedings 41: 1591. [Google Scholar]

Articles from European Journal of Sport Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES