A new method for the calculation of constant supra-VO_2peak power outputs

This investigation compared the variance in times to exhaustion among four different methods of supra-V̇O_2peak power output calculation. Ten male subjects cycled to exhaustion at power outputs equivalent to 1) 120% V̇O_2peak, 2) 6 W·kg^-1, 3) 100% V̇O2peak + 10% of the peak anaerobic scope (PAS), and 4) 100% VO_2peak + 20% of the mean anaerobic scope (MAS). PAS was defined as the difference between the peak power output (PPO) during a 30-s all-out cycle sprint and the power output at VO_2peak MAS was defined as the difference between the mean power output (MPO) during a 30-s all-out cycle sprint and the power output at VO_2peak While the mean times to exhaustion for the four methods were not significantly different, the supra-VO_2eak power output calculated as 120% VO_2peak resulted in significantly more variance (P = 0.0173) in the times to exhaustion than did the power output equivalent to 20% MAS + 100% VO_2peak (SE 16.2 s vs 6.9 s). The variance in time to exhaustion was significantly higher with the power output of 6 W·kg^-1 than for the remaining three methods, while the variance in times to exhaustion at a power output of 10% PAS + 100% VO_2peak was not significantly different from either 120% V̇O2peak or 20% MAS + 100% V̇O_2peak. These results indicate that a supra-V̇O_2peak power output that accounts for both aerobic ability and anaerobic work capacity (20% MAS + 100% V̇O_2peak) results in less variance in time to exhaustion than a method which extrapolates the submaximal power output-V̇O₂ relationship to a supramaximal intensity (120% VO_2peak).