Purpose: To (1) compare the power output (PO) for both the 20-minute functional threshold power (FTP20) field test and the calculated 95% (FTP95%) with PO at maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) and (2) evaluate the sensitivity of FTP95% and MLSS to training-induced changes. Methods: Eighteen participants (12 males: 37  y and 6 females: 28  y) performed a ramp-incremental cycling test to exhaustion, 2 to 3 constant-load MLSS trials, and an FTP20 test. A total of 10 participants returned to repeat the test series after 7 months of training. Results: The PO at FTP20 and FTP95% was greater than that at MLSS (P = .00), with the PO at MLSS representing 88.5% (4.8%) and 93.1% (5.1%) of FTP and FTP95%, respectively. MLSS was greater at POST compared with PRE training (12  W) (P = .002). No increase was observed in mean PO at FTP20 and FTP95% (P = .75). Conclusions: The results indicate that the PO at FTP95% is different to MLSS, and that changes in the PO at MLSS after training were not reflected by FTP95%. Even when using an adjusted percentage (ie, 88% rather than 95% of FTP20), the large variability in the data is such that it would not be advisable to use this as a representation of MLSS.
Erin Calaine Inglis, Danilo Iannetta, Louis Passfield and Juan M. Murias
Erin Calaine Inglis, Danilo Iannetta, Daniel A. Keir and Juan M. Murias
Purpose: To evaluate whether the coherence in the oxygen uptake (
Twan ten Haaf, Selma van Staveren, Danilo Iannetta, Bart Roelands, Romain Meeusen, Maria F. Piacentini, Carl Foster, Leo Koenderman, Hein A.M. Daanen and Jos J. de Koning
Purpose: Reaction time has been proposed as a training monitoring tool, but to date, results are equivocal. Therefore, it was investigated whether reaction time can be used as a monitoring tool to establish overreaching. Methods: The study included 30 subjects (11 females and 19 males, age: 40.8 [10.8] years, VO2max: 51.8 [6.3] mL/kg/min) who participated in an 8-day cycling event. The external exercise load increased approximately 900% compared with the preparation period. Performance was measured before and after the event using a maximal incremental cycling test. Subjects with decreased performance after the event were classified as functionally overreached (FOR) and others as acutely fatigued (AF). A choice reaction time test was performed 2 weeks before (pre), 1 week after (post), and 5 weeks after (follow-up), as well as at the start and end of the event. Results: A total of 14 subjects were classified as AF and 14 as FOR (2 subjects were excluded). During the event, reaction time at the end was 68 ms (95% confidence interval, 46–89) faster than at the start. Reaction time post event was 41 ms (95% confidence interval, 12–71) faster than pre event and follow-up was 55 ms faster (95% confidence interval, 26–83). The time by class interaction was not significant during (P = .26) and after (P = .43) the event. Correlations between physical performance and reaction time were not significant (all Ps > .30). Conclusions: No differences in choice reaction time between AF and FOR subjects were observed. It is suggested that choice reaction time is not valid for early detection of overreaching in the field.