ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
RACLET: the Ramp Above Critical Level Endurance Test to evaluate critical power in cycling.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- RACLET: the Ramp Above Critical Level Endurance Test to evaluate critical velocity in running.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study introduces the Ramp Above Critical Level Endurance Test (RACLET), a novel method for evaluating critical power model parameters, and tests its reliability and concurrent validity.
methodsTwenty-three participants completed several RACLET and time-to-exhaustion tests (TTE). The RACLET is based on the proportionnality between the decline in maximal power (fatigability) and the work done above the critical power and involves a decreasing power ramp with intermittent maximal sprints, inducing moderate fatigue without exhaustion.
resultsThe test demonstrated reliability for the initial power ([Formula: see text]) and critical power ([Formula: see text]) (ICC > 0.97), and for the time constant (τ) (ICC = 0.70). The concurrent validity against TTE for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] showed systematic errors of 1.7% and 3.0%, respectively, and for τ and maximum work above the critical power, systematic errors were approximately 10%. The RACLET predictive capacity for time-to-exhaustion showed a systematic error of -0.6% and a random error of 10.3%.
conclusionThese results suggest that the RACLET is a reliable, valid, and efficient alternative to traditional critical power testing methods, offering comparable accuracy with a single test without inducing exhaustion. This approach could be particularly beneficial for populations in which exhaustive testing is challenging or impractical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417070What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.