Purpose We compared a new locomotor-specific model to track the expenditure and reconstitution of work done above critical power (W´) and balance of W´ (W´BAL) by modelling flat over-ground power during exhaustive intermittent running.
Method Nine male participants completed a ramp test, 3-min all-out test and the 30–15 intermittent fitness test (30–15 IFT), and performed a severe-intensity constant work-rate trial (SCWR) at the maximum oxygen uptake velocity (vV̇O2max). Four intermittent trials followed: 60-s at vV̇O2max + 50% Δ1 (Δ1 = vV̇O2max − critical velocity [VCrit]) interspersed by 30-s in light (SL; 40% vV̇O2max), moderate (SM; 90% gas-exchange threshold velocity [VGET]), heavy (SH; VGET + 50% Δ2 [Δ2 = VCrit − VGET]), or severe (SS; vV̇O2max − 50% Δ1) domains. Data from Global Positioning Systems were derived to model over-ground power. The difference between critical and recovery power (DCP), time constant for reconstitution of W´ (τW′), time to limit of tolerance (TLIM), and W´BAL from the integral (W´BALint), differential (W´BALdiff), and locomotor-specific (OG-W´BAL) methods were compared.
Results The relationship between τW′ and DCP was exponential (r2 = 0.52). The τW′ for SL, SM, and SH trials were 119 ± 32-s, 190 ± 45-s, and 336 ± 77-s, respectively. Actual TLIM in the 30–15 IFT (968 ± 117-s) compared closely to TLIM predicted by OG-W´BAL (929 ± 94-s, P > 0.100) and W´BALdiff (938 ± 84-s, P > 0.100) but not to W´BALint (848 ± 91-s, P = 0.001).
Conclusion The OG-W´BAL accurately tracked W´ kinetics during intermittent running to exhaustion on flat surfaces.