Key result
Outdoor performance testing resulted in higher critical power compared with indoor testing (+19 W, P = .005) among elite and professional cyclists.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the relationship between typical performance tests among elite and professional cyclists when conducted indoors versus outdoors.
Does outdoor testing compared to indoor testing yield different maximum mean power results in professional cyclists?
Observational (n=14)
Does outdoor testing compared to indoor testing yield different maximum mean power results in professional cyclists?
Mean Difference: 19
p-value: p=0.005
Maximal power testing in indoor and outdoor settings yields significantly different results and cannot be used interchangeably in elite cyclists.
Indoor-outdoor MMP tests differ significantly in elites and should not be interchanged; leaves open standardized protocols and individual translation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between typical performance tests among elite and professional cyclists when conducted indoors and outdoors. METHODS: Fourteen male cyclists of either UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) Continental or UCI World Tour level (mean [SD] age 20.9 [2.8] y, mass 68.13 [7.25] kg) were recruited to participate in 4 test sessions (2 indoors and 2 outdoors) within a 14-day period, consisting of maximum mean power testing for durations of 60, 180, 300, and 840 seconds. RESULTS: Across all maximum mean power test durations, the trimmed mean power was higher outdoors compared with indoor testing (P < .05). Critical power was higher outdoors compared with indoors (+19 W, P = .005), while no difference was observed for the work capacity above critical power. Self-selected cadence was 6 rpm higher indoors versus outdoors for test durations of 60 (P = .038) and 300 seconds (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that maximal power testing in indoor and outdoor settings cannot be used interchangeably. Furthermore, there was substantial individual variation in the difference between indoor and outdoor maximum mean powers across all time durations, further highlighting the difficulty of translating results from indoor testing to outdoor on an individual level in elite populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lipski et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Elite and professional cyclists (n=14). Outdoor performance testing vs. Indoor performance testing was evaluated on Critical power (MD 19 W, p=0.005). Outdoor performance testing resulted in higher critical power compared with indoor testing (+19 W, P = .005) among elite and professional cyclists.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: