Hill D W, Smith J C
Department of Kinesiology, University of North Texas, Denton.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1994 Mar;34(1):23-37.
Estimates of anaerobic work capacity (AWC) were determined in 26 subjects using the critical power concept. AWC estimates were derived using three mathematically equivalent models: nonlinear power-time, linear power-1/time, and linear work-time. We hypothesized that large variability between estimates generated using the three models might reflect systematic error in the data and that large standard errors of estimate (SEE) might reflect random error. Therefore, subjects were grouped according to the variability in the three AWC estimates and according to the magnitude of the SEE of the parameter estimates. Then AWC estimates were compared to a criterion measure of anaerobic capacity, namely maximal oxygen deficit. When variability in the AWC estimates was low (< 10%), all provided accurate measures of oxygen deficit; also, when SEE were low, estimates were accurate. When variability was high, mean AWC estimates derived using linear models differed from oxygen deficit by over 15%; when SEE were high, mean AWC estimates derived using all models differed from oxygen deficit by over 10%. It is concluded that the accuracy of estimates of anaerobic capacity derived using the critical power concept can best be ensured by accepting values only when all three models provide the same value and/or when the SEE of the AWC estimate is small.
使用临界功率概念对26名受试者的无氧工作能力（AWC）进行了评估。AWC评估采用了三种数学上等效的模型：非线性功率-时间模型、线性功率-1/时间模型和线性功-时间模型。我们假设，使用这三种模型得出的评估值之间的较大差异可能反映了数据中的系统误差，而较大的估计标准误差（SEE）可能反映了随机误差。因此，根据三种AWC评估值的差异以及参数估计的SEE大小对受试者进行分组。然后将AWC评估值与无氧能力的标准测量值，即最大氧亏进行比较。当AWC评估值的差异较低（<10%）时，所有评估值都能准确测量氧亏；同样，当SEE较低时，评估值也是准确的。当差异较高时，使用线性模型得出的平均AWC评估值与氧亏的差异超过15%；当SEE较高时，使用所有模型得出的平均AWC评估值与氧亏的差异超过10%。结论是，只有当所有三种模型给出相同的值和/或AWC估计的SEE较小时，接受这些值才能最好地确保使用临界功率概念得出的无氧能力估计的准确性。
