Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exploratory study examines reliability and agreement in athletes' power assessments, indicating caution for individual monitoring.
Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine mean differences, reliability, and agreement between CP and W′ derived from a 3MAT performed after an ICT and values obtained during a standalone 3MAT performed on a separate day. Methods: Ten recreationally trained cyclists and triathletes completed four laboratory visits, including an ICT followed by a 3MAT after 30 min of recovery (same-day condition) and a standalone 3MAT performed on a separate day. CP and W′ were derived from both conditions and compared using paired t-tests and Bland–Altman agreement methods. Results: No systematic differences, but limited individual-level agreement were observed between same-day and separate-day conditions for CP (mean difference: 1.72 ± 36.5 W) or W′ (mean difference: 0.99 ± 5.9 kJ), with trivial to small effect sizes. Peak VO2 values were also not significantly different across testing conditions (p = 0.483). However, Bland–Altman analysis revealed wide limits of agreement for both CP (−69.8 to 73.3 W) and W′ (−10.7 to 12.7 kJ), indicating substantial variability at the individual level. Conclusions: Although same-day testing does not introduce systematic bias in CP or W′ estimation, the wide limits of agreement suggest that these protocols are not interchangeable for individual monitoring. Same-day testing may be appropriate for group-level assessments but should be used with caution when applied to individual athlete monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: