Key result
Respiratory compensation point shows poor concordance with critical power during incremental cycling, invalidating surrogate use.
Why the study?
Is the respiratory compensation point (RCP) a valid surrogate for Critical Power (CP) during incremental cycling in recreationally-active men?
RCT (n=11)
Randomized protocol order
Is the respiratory compensation point (RCP) a valid surrogate for Critical Power (CP) during incremental cycling in recreationally-active men?
The respiratory compensation point (RCP) varies with ramp slope and shows poor concordance with Critical Power (CP), indicating it is not a valid surrogate for CP.
Do not use RCP as CP surrogate in ramp tests; Level 5 data challenge its validity and leave open protocol-specific alternatives.
There is a growing opinion in the literature that Critical Power (CP) may be confidently estimated from the respiratory compensation point (RCP) obtained during incremental cycling. Opponents of this view argue that any reported correspondence between the RCP and CP is coincidental. It is known that the RCP is labile: i.e., its manifestation defers to higher work rates during fast compared with slow incremental protocols. PURPOSE: We sought to examine the agreement between CP and the work rates corresponding to the RCP obtained during incremental cycling protocols of varying ramp slopes. METHODS: 11 recreationally-active men (23 ± 1 yr; 75 ± 2 kg; 179 ± 2 cm; peak O2 uptake: 53 ± 2 ml·kg-1·min-1) completed 3 separate incremental protocols, where the work rate increment was slow (SR: 15 W·min-1), medium (MR: 30 W·min-1) and fast (FR: 45 W·min-1). Protocol order was randomised. The gas-exchange threshold (GET) and RCP were obtained via computerised analysis of the relationships between O2 uptake and CO2 output, and CO2 output and expired ventilation, respectively. CP was determined via the 3-min “all-out” cycling test. The assumption that the RCP and CP occur at equivalent work rates was assessed by evaluating the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and root-mean square error (RMSE), between RCP and CP for each protocol, separately. RESULTS: The GET was similar across ramp protocols (pooled average: 149 ± 8 W). RCP augmented (P < 0.05) with increasing ramp slope (SR = 237 ± 9 W; MR = 253 ± 10 W; FR: 271 ± 10 W). The RCP work rates determined during each ramp protocol were not different from the group-mean CP (249 ± 8 W). The degree to which the relationship between RCP and CP approximated the “line-of-identity” was relatively poor for SR (CCC = 0.589; RMSE = 31 W), MR (CCC = 0.587; RMSE = 32 W) and FR (CCC = 0.438; RMSE = 30 W). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings agree with those of previous studies in that the work rate at RCP augments with increasing ramp slope during incremental cycling. Moreover, despite occurring at similar mean work rates, the relatively poor CCC and large RMSE between CP and RCP for each ramp protocol suggests that the RCP should not be considered a valid surrogate of the CP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leo et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in Healthy recreationally-active (n=11). Incremental cycling protocols of varying ramp slopes vs. Critical Power determined via 3-min all-out cycling test was evaluated on Agreement between Critical Power and work rates corresponding to the respiratory compensation point (assessed by CCC and RMSE). The respiratory compensation point obtained during incremental cycling showed poor concordance with critical power across slow, medium, and fast ramp slopes (CCC 0.438-0.589), invalidating it as a surrogate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: