Fig 1.
Schematic figure of the system developed on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT) for 3-min all-out (3MT) total power and critical power (CP) determination.
1. Height adjustment bar; 2. load cell; 3. steel cable with elastic cords (CP) or just steel cable (3MT); 4. NMT; 5. exhaustion apparatus; 6. belt attached to the steel cable and participant; 7. exhaustion apparatus security belt; 8. data acquisition module (DAC system); 9. signal amplifier; 10. computer; 11. hall effect sensor located on the treadmill’s front cylinder to determine the velocity that results from the connection with the DAC system.
Table 1.
Aerobic capacity parameters derived from the application of the 3MT (EP) and conventional CP tests (critical power hyperbolic model–CP Hyp; critical power work model versus time–CP Ԏ vs t; critical power model versus 1/time–CP P vs 1/t), R2 of mathematical equations, coefficient of variation (CV), confidence interval (IC95%), the error % associated with the prediction of EP (Error %) and effect size (ES) (n = 8).
Table 2.
Anaerobic capacity parameters derived from the application of the 3MT (WEP) and conventional CP tests (W’ Hyp; anaerobic work capacity work model versus time–W’ Ԏ vs t and anaerobic work capacity model versus 1/time–W’ P vs 1/t), R2 of mathematical equations, coefficient of variation (CV), confidence interval (IC95%), the error % associated with the prediction of WEP (%Er-WEP) and effect size (ES) (n = 8).
Table 3.
Mean and standard deviation of the power output, force, velocity and time limit variables of each predictive load from the conventional CP test (n = 8).
Table 4.
Mean ± standard deviation of physiological parameters of lactate peak (LAC P) and heart rate (HR PT) derived from the application of 3MT and predictive load tests to obtain conventional CP (predictive 3 elastics, predictive 4 elastics, predictive 5 elastics, predictive 6 elastics) (n = 8).
Fig 2.
Limits of agreement among aerobic parameters of CP Hyp, CP Ԏ vs t, CP P vs 1/t and EP through the Bland and Altman analysis [17].
W, Watts. Diff, difference among values of aerobic parameters. A (EP—CP Hyp), B (EP- CP P vs 1/t), C (EP—CP Ԏ vs t), D (CP Hyp—CP P vs 1/t), E (CP Hyp—CP Work vs t) and F (CP Work vs t—CP P vs 1/t).
Fig 3.
Limits of agreement among aerobic parameters of W’ Hyp, W’ Ԏ vs t and W’ P vs 1/t, compared to WEP through the Bland and Altman analysis [17].
kJ, Kilojoule. Diff, difference among values of anaerobic parameters. G (WEP—W’ Hyp), H (WEP–W’ P vs 1/t), I (WEP–W’ Work vs t), J (W’ Hyp–W’ P vs 1/t), K (W’ Hyp–W’ Work vs t) and L (W’ work vs t–W’ P vs 1/t).
Fig 4.
Linear regression among aerobic parameters of CP Hyp, CP Ԏ vs t, CP P vs 1/t and EP, and anaerobic parameters of W’ Hyp, W’ Ԏ vs t and W’ P vs 1/t, compared to WEP.
M (EP—CP Hyp), N (EP—CP Ԏ vs t), O (EP- CP P vs 1/t), P (WEP—W’ Hyp), Q (WEP–W’ Ԏ vs t) and R (WEP–W’ P vs 1/t).
Table 5.
Results of Pearson correlation and absolute agreement ICC between aerobic and anaerobic parameters from the application of the 3MT (EP–WEP) and conventional CP tests (CP Hyp, CP Ԏ vs t and CP P vs 1/t—W’ Hyp, W’ Ԏ vs t and CP P vs 1/t) (n = 8).