The study aimed to assess the reproducibility of power output during a 4 min (TT4) and a 20 min (TT20) time-trial and the relationship with performance markers obtained during a laboratory graded exercise test (GXT). Ventilatory and lactate thresholds during a GXT were measured in competitive male cyclists (n=15; (.)VO (2max) 67+/-5 ml x min (-1) x kg (-1); P (max) 440+/-38W). Two 4 min and 20 min time-trials were performed on flat roads. Power output was measured using a mobile power-meter (SRM). Strong intraclass-correlations for TT4 ( R=0.98; 95% CL: 0.92-0.99) and TT20 ( R=0.98; 95% CL: 0.95-0.99) were observed. TT4 showed a bias+/-random error of - 0.8+/-23W or - 0.2+/-5.5%. During TT20 the bias+/-random error was - 1.8+/-14W or 0.6+/-4.4%. Both time-trials were strongly correlated with performance measures from the GXT (p<0.001). Significant differences were observed between power output during TT4 and GXT measures (p<0.001). No significant differences were found between TT20 and power output at the second lactate-turn-point (LTP2) (p=0.98) and respiratory compensation point (RCP) (p=0.97). In conclusion, TT4 and TT20 mean power outputs are reliable predictors of aerobic endurance. TT20 was in agreement with power output at RCP and LTP2.

This study tested the effects of low-cadence (60 rev min(-1)) uphill (Int(60)) or high-cadence (100 rev min(-1)) level-ground (Int(100)) interval training on power output (PO) during 20-min uphill (TT(up)) and flat (TT(flat)) time-trials. Eighteen male cyclists ([Formula: see text]: 58.6 ± 5.4 mL min(-1) kg(-1)) were randomly assigned to Int(60), Int(100) or a control group (Con). The interval training comprised two training sessions per week over 4 weeks, which consisted of six bouts of 5 min at the PO corresponding to the respiratory compensation point (RCP). For the control group, no interval training was conducted. A two-factor ANOVA revealed significant increases on performance measures obtained from a laboratory-graded exercise test (GXT) (P (max): 2.8 ± 3.0%; p < 0.01; PO and [Formula: see text] at RCP: 3.6 ± 6.3% and 4.7 ± 8.2%, respectively; p < 0.05; and [Formula: see text] at ventilatory threshold: 4.9 ± 5.6%; p < 0.01), with no significant group effects. Significant interactions between group and uphill and flat time-trial, pre- versus post-training on PO were observed (p < 0.05). Int(60) increased PO during both TT(up) (4.4 ± 5.3%) and TT(flat) (1.5 ± 4.5%). The changes were -1.3 ± 3.6, 2.6 ± 6.0% for Int(100) and 4.0 ± 4.6%, -3.5 ± 5.4% for Con during TT(up) and TT(flat), respectively. PO was significantly higher during TT(up) than TT(flat) (4.4 ± 6.0; 6.3 ± 5.6%; pre and post-training, respectively; p < 0.001). These findings suggest that higher forces during the low-cadence intervals are potentially beneficial to improve performance. In contrast to the GXT, the time-trials are ecologically valid to detect specific performance adaptations.

This study investigated the trainability of decision-making and reactive agility via video-based visual training in young athletes. Thirty-four members of a national football academy (age: 14.4 ± 0.1 years) were randomly assigned to a training (VIS; n = 18) or a control group (CON; n = 16). In addition to the football training, the VIS completed a video-based visual training twice a week over a period of six weeks during the competition phase. Using the temporal occlusion technique, the players were instructed to react on one-on-one situations shown in 40 videos. The number of successful decisions and the response time were measured with a video-based test. In addition, the reactive-agility sprint test was used. VIS significantly improved the number of successful decisions (22.2 ± 3.6 s vs. 29.8 ± 4.5 s; p < 0.001), response time (0.41 ± 0.10 s vs. 0.31 ± 0.10 s; p = 0.006) and reactive agility (2.22 ± 0.33 s vs. 1.94 ± 0.11 s; p = 0.001) pre- vs. post-training. No significant differences were found for CON. The results have shown that video-based visual training improves the time to make decisions as well as reactive agility sprint-time, accompanied by an increase in successful decisions. It remains to be shown whether or not such training can improve simulated or actual game performance.

Whilst Critical Speed (CS) has been successfully translated from the laboratory into the field, this translation is still outstanding for the related maximum running distance (). Using iso-duration exhaustive laboratory and field runs, this study investigated the potential interchangeable use of both parameters, and CS. After an incremental exercise test, 10 male participants (age: 24.9±2.1 yrs; height: 180.8±5.8 cm; body mass: 75.3±8.6 kg; V̇ ˙VO 52.9±3.1 mL∙min∙kg) performed 3 time-to-exhaustion runs on a treadmill followed by 3 exhaustive time-trial runs on a-400 m athletics outdoor track. Field time-trial durations were matched to their respective laboratory time-to-exhaustion runs. and CS were calculated using the inverse-time model (speed=/t+CS). Laboratory and field values of and CS were not significantly different (221±7 m vs. 225±72 m;=0.73 and 3.75±0.36 m∙s vs. 3.77±0.35 m∙s, =0.68), and they were significantly correlated (=0.86 and 0.94). The 95% LoA were ±75.5 m and ±0.24 m∙s for and CS, respectively. Applying iso-durations provides non-significant differences for and CS and a significant correlation between conditions. This novel translation method can consequently be recommended to coaches and practitioners, however a questionable level of agreement indicates to use with caution.

To compare critical power (CP) and the maximum work performed above CP (W') obtained from a single-visit laboratory test with a single-visit field test, 10 trained cyclists (V˙O(2max) 63.2±5.5 mL·min(-1)·kg(-1)) performed a laboratory and a field test. The laboratory test consisted of 3 trials to exhaustion between 2-15 min and the field test comprised 3 maximal efforts of 2, 6 and 12 min, where power output was measured using a mobile power meter. CP and W' were estimated using 3 mathematical models (hyperbolic, linear work-time, linear power -1/time). The agreement between laboratory and field conditions was assessed with the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). CP was not significantly different between laboratory (280±33 W) and field conditions (281±28 W) (P=0.950). W' was significantly higher in laboratory (21.6±7.1 kJ) compared to field conditions (16.3±7.4 kJ) (P=0.013). The bias was -2.8±27 W (95% LoA: -55 to 50 W) and 6.4±5.1 kJ (95% LoA: -3.5 to 16.4 kJ) for CP and W', respectively. No differences between the mathematical models were found for CP and W' (P=0.054-1.000). Although CP was not significantly different between conditions, a high random variation does not support its interchangeable use. The mathematical model used has no influence on estimates of CP and W'.