Validity of cycling peak power as measured by a short-sprint test versus the Wingate anaerobic test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To validate the measurement of peak power output (PPO) using a short cycling sprint test (inertial load (IL) test), we compare it to the widely accepted Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT). Fifteen healthy, young, active subjects performed 2 experimental trials. In each trial, subjects warmed up and sprinted 4 times for the IL test. After recovery, they cycled for 30 s at maximum capacity for the WAnT. The experimental trial was replicated 3 d later to test for reliability. Inter- and intra-day PPO measured with the IL test was very reliable (R(1) = 0.99 and R(1) = 0.94, respectively). The correlation between the IL and WAnT was highly significant (r = 0.82; P < 0.001), although the absolute PPO values were markedly higher for the IL test (1268 +/- 41 W vs. 786 +/- 27 W; P < 0.001). In conclusion, cycling PPO can be validly assessed with the IL test. The higher PPO attained with an IL test could be related to better identification of peak power, since both velocity and resistance are free to vary during the sprint in comparison with the WAnT, where resistance is fixed. Owing to the short duration of the sprint (4 s) and high intra-day reliability despite a short recovery time (180 s), the IL test is optimal for repeated measurements of anaerobic performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".