Time-to-exhaustion (TTE) trials are used in a laboratory setting to measure endurance performance. However, there is some concern with their ecological validity compared with time-trials (TT). Consequently, we aimed to compare cycling performance in TTE and TT where the duration of the trials was matched. Seventeen trained male cyclists completed three TTE trials at 80, 100 and 105% of maximal aerobic power (MAP). On a subsequent visit they performed three TT over the same duration as the TTE. Participants were blinded to elapsed time, power output, cadence and heart rate (HR). Average TTE was 865 ± 345 s, 165 ± 98 s and 117 ± 45 s for the 80, 100 and 105% trials respectively. Average power output was higher for TTE (294 ± 44 W) compared to TT (282 ± 43 W) at 80% MAP (P < 0.01), but not at 100 and 105% MAP (P > 0.05). There was no difference in cadence, HR, or RPE for any trial (P > 0.05). Critical power (CP) was also higher when derived from TTE compared to TT (P < 0.01). It is concluded that TTE results in a higher average power output compared to TT at 80% MAP. When determining CP, TTE rather than TT protocols appear superior.

No abstract

This study compared effects of training at moderate, high, or a combination of the two intensities (mixed) on performance and physiological adaptations, when training durations were individualised. Untrained participants (n = 34) were assigned to a moderate, high, or mixed group. Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O), power output at V̇O (MAP), time-to-exhaustion and gross efficiency were recorded before and after four weeks of cycling training (four times per week). The moderate group cycled at 60% MAP in blocks of 5 min with 1 min recovery, and training duration was individualised to 100% of pre-training time-to-exhaustion. The high group cycled at 100% MAP for 2 min with 3 min recovery, and training duration was set as the maximum number of repetitions completed in the first training session. The mixed group completed two moderate- and two high-intensity sessions each week, on alternate days. V̇O, MAP, and time-to-exhaustion increased after training (P < 0.05), but were not different between groups (P > 0.05). The mixed group improved their gross efficiency at 50% MAP more than the other two groups (P = 0.044) after training. When training is individualised for untrained participants, similar improvements in performance and physiological measures are found, despite marked differences in exercise intensity and total training duration.

No abstract