Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2023; 44(13): 983-987
DOI: 10.1055/a-2079-1363
Training & Testing

An Update Of The Allen & Coggan Equation To Predict 60-Min Power Output In Cyclists Of Different Performance Levels

Sebastian Sitko 
1   Department of Physiatry and Nursery, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
,
Rafel Cirer-Sastre 
2   Institut Nacional d'Educació Física de Catalunya (INEFC), Universitat de Lleida (UdL), Lleida, Spain
,
Isaac López-Laval
1   Department of Physiatry and Nursery, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Allen & Coggan protocol suggests that 95% of the power output during a 20-min time trial is a valid surrogate for 60-min maximal power. The validity of this concept has not been studied previously in cyclists with different performance levels. As a result, we classified 120 cyclists in our study as recreationally trained, trained, well trained or professional, based on their maximal oxygen consumption. Participants performed a functional threshold power testing protocol based on a 20-min time trial and a 60-min time trial, separated by a 72-hour rest. Sixty-minute maximal power was successfully modeled with 20-min maximal power and performance group using 2/3 of the dataset (R2=0.77, 95% CrI [0.74, 0.79]) with different coefficients for each group: Professional: PO60min=PO20min × 0.96; well trained: PO60min=PO20min × 0.95; trained: PO60min=PO20min × 0.92 and recreationally trained: PO60min=PO20min × 0.88. The predictions of the original equation and our model were assessed using the remaining third of the data. The predictive performance of the updated equation was better (original: R2=0.51, mean absolute error=27 W, mean bias=–12 W; updated: R2=0.54, mean absolute error=25 W, mean bias=–7 W).

Key word

coggan & allen test - cycling - physiology - endurance - power meter

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 24 November 2022

Accepted: 04 April 2023

Article published online:
06 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Skinner JS, McLellan TH. The transition from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism. Res Q Exerc Sport 1980; 51: 234-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Faude O, Kindermann W, Meyer T. Lactate threshold concepts: How valid are they?. Sports Med 2009; 39: 469-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Poole DC, Rossiter HB, Brooks GA. et al. The anaerobic threshold: 50+years of controversy. J Physiol 2020; 599: 737-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wallace LK, Slattery KM, Coutts AJ. A comparison of methods for quantifying training load: Relationships between modelled and actual training responses. Eur J Appl Physiol 2014; 114: 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sanders D, Abt G, Hesselink MKC. et al. Methods of monitoring training load and their relationships to changes in fitness and performance in competitive road cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 668-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 276-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Passfield L, Hopker J, Jobson S. et al. Knowledge is power: Issues of measuring training and performance in cycling. J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 1426-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Allen H, Coggan A. Training and racing with a power meter. Boulder; VeloPress. 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mackey J, Horner K. What is known about the FTP20 test related to cycling? A scoping review. J Sports Sci 2021; 39: 2735-2745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Klitzke F, Ferreira A, Pereira V. Is the functional threshold power interchangeable with the maximal lactate steady state in trained cyclists?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; 14: 1029-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, Corbi F. et al. Relationship between functional threshold power, ventilatory threshold and respiratory compensation point in road cycling. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2021; 62: 626-632
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, Corbi F. et al. Power assessment in road cycling: A narrative review. Sustainability 2020; 12: 5216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Borszcz FK, Tramontin AF, Bossi AH. et al. Functional threshold power in cyclists: validity of the concept and physiological responses. Int J Sports Med 2018; 39: 737-742
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 De Pauw K, Roelands B, Cheung SS. et al. Guidelines to classify subject groups in sport-science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2013; 1: 111-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Warburton DER, Jamnik V, Bredin SSD. et al. The 2019 physical activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic physical activity readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+). Heal Fit J Canada 2018; 11: 80-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Montalvo-Pérez A, Alejo LB, Valenzuela PL. et al. Validity of the favero assioma duo power pedal system for measuring power output and cadence. Sensors 2021; 21: 2277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, Corbi F. et al. Functional threshold power as an alternative to lactate thresholds in road cycling. J strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 3179-3183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hopkins WG, Stephen WM, Alan MB. et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krissina MA, Steven BK, Jeffrey OW. A Tutorial of Bland Altman analysis in a Bayesian framework. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2009; 25: 137-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bürkner PC. Brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J Stat Softw 2017; 80: 1-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tramontin AF, Borszcz FK, Costa V. Functional threshold power estimated from a 20-minute time-trial test is warm-up-dependent. Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 411-417
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Barranco-Gil D, Alejo LB, Valenzuela PL. et al. Warming up before a 20-minute endurance effort: is it really worth it?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020; 15: 964-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barranco-Gil D, Gil-Cabrera J, Valenzuela PL. et al. Functional threshold power: relationship with respiratory compensation point and effects of various warm-up protocols. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020; 15: 1047-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Maunder E, Seiler S, Mildenhall MJ. et al. The importance of “durability” in the physiological profiling of endurance athletes. Sports Med 2021; 51: 1619-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sitko S, Cirer-Sastre R, López-Laval I. Time to exhaustion at estimated functional threshold power in road cyclists of different performance levels. J Sci Med Sport 2022; 25: 783-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Micklewright D, Papadopoulou E, Swart J. et al. Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44: 952-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cesanelli L, Indaburu A. Evaluation of strategy and tactics in cycling: A systematic review of evaluation methods and possible performance implications. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2020; 61: 810-817
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hibbert AW, Billaut F, Varley MC. et al. Familiarization protocol influences reproducibility of 20-km cycling time-trial performance in novice participants. Front Physiol 2017; 8: 488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Spindler DJ, Allen MS, Vella SA. et al. The psychology of elite cycling: A systematic review. J Sports Sci 2018; 36: 1943-1954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar