1 Durability, Fatigability, Repeatability and Resilience in Endurance Sports:

2 Definitions, Distinctions, and Implications

4 Benedikt Meixner1,2,3, Michael J. Joyner4 & Billy Sperlich1

1
5 Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Integrative and Experimental Exercise
6 Science & Training, Department of Sport Science, Judenbühlweg 11, 97082
7 Würzburg, Germany
2
8 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science
9 and Sport, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
3
10 iq-move Praxis Fraunberger, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
4
11 Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester,
12 Minnesota, USA
13
14 Correspondence to:
15 Benedikt Meixner
16 Integrative and Experimental Exercise Science & Training,
17 Department of Sport Science, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg,
18 Judenbühlweg 11, 97082 Würzburg, Germany
19 [email protected]

20 +49 931 31-89844

21

22
23
24
25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 Introduction

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

33 Endurance performance in disciplines such as cycling, middle and long distance
34 running, triathlon, and cross-country skiing has traditionally been explained, to a large
35 extent, by three well-established physiological determinants: maximal oxygen uptake
36 (V̇O₂max), lactate threshold, and movement economy (1-5). V̇O₂max reflects the
37 maximal power of the cardiorespiratory system to uptake, transport, and utilize
38 oxygen. Lactate threshold denotes the highest exercise intensity that can be
39 sustained in a metabolic quasi-steady state, while movement economy describes the
40 energy cost associated with maintaining submaximal velocities (6). This three-
41 component model has been central to performance profiling and accounts for a
42 substantial proportion of the inter-individual variance in endurance performance,
43 particularly under standardized laboratory conditions (7, 8).

44 However, accumulating empirical and field-based evidence indicates that these

45 classical markers are insufficient to fully explain endurance performance between
46 athletes and in different endurance sport events, particularly in competitive scenarios
47 characterized by prolonged durations or repeated efforts, sometimes extending
48 across multiple days (9, 10). To address these limitations, recent scientific work has
49 proposed additional constructs that extend the traditional three-dimensional model
50 and better reflect the complex and multidimensional nature of endurance
51 performance (11, 12). Concepts such as durability (11), fatigability (13, 14),
52 (physiological) resilience (12), and (high-intensity) repeatability (11) have emerged to
53 describe an athlete’s capacity to limit physiological deterioration, tolerate and
54 accumulate fatigue, adapt to environmental and psychological stressors, and recover
55 between successive high-intensity efforts in various disciplines. We provide a
56 visualization of concepts in Figure 1.

57 ***Figure 1 near here***

58 These constructs recognize that endurance performance is not solely determined by

59 the three-component model but also by an athlete's ability to cope with internal and
60 external stressors throughout different competitive scenarios. Emerging evidence
61 emphasizes the influence of prior intensity and duration of exercise (7, 14, 15),
62 environmental conditions(16-18), substrate availability (7), hydration (19, 20) on
63 these additional performance dimensions. Collectively, these concepts advocate for a
64 refinement of the existing three-component endurance performance model by
65 integrating these emerging constructs and identifying sport-specific variables that

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

66 more accurately predict competitive outcomes. However, the interchangeable use of
67 terms such as durability, fatigability, resilience, and repeatability (21) risks obscuring
68 the conceptual distinctions between them. From our perspective, the sustained
69 endurance required for marathon racing reflects a distinct physiological characteristic
70 – namely, the ability to maintain a high submaximal workload over prolonged periods
71 with minimal performance degradation – which differs fundamentally from the
72 capacity to repeatedly generate and recover from high-intensity efforts, as often
73 observed in stage-based road cycling, where athletes may face demanding efforts
74 over consecutive days or weeks.

75 Despite their intuitive appeal, these emerging constructs raise conceptual challenges.
76 In contrast to classical physiological parameters such as V̇O₂max, lactate threshold or
77 running economy, which are based on quantifiable and reproducible measurements,
78 terms like durability, fatigability, resilience, and repeatability often lack clear,
79 universally accepted definitions and standardized operationalization. This conceptual
80 vagueness risks reducing them to umbrella constructs rather than discrete,
81 measurable performance determinants. Moreover, their application varies
82 inconsistently across sports and research groups, complicating cross-study
83 comparability and systematic integration into performance models. Consequently,
84 while these constructs offer valuable perspectives on endurance performance, their
85 current status as largely theoretical frameworks, rather than clearly defined
86 physiological parameters, limits their practical utility and scientific robustness.

87 The aims here are therefore to critically examine and conceptually clarify the
88 emerging constructs of durability, fatigability, resilience, and repeatability in
89 endurance sports. We seek to propose a distinction and contrast between these
90 constructs to explore their potential sport-specific manifestations, and propose
91 methodological approaches for their operationalization, measurement, and future
92 research.

93

94

95 Durability

96 Definition & empirical evidence

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

 97 Durability describes the “deterioration in physiological characteristics over time during
98 prolonged exercise“ (11), such as marathon running (7, 22), cycling time trials, or
99 multi-hour endurance events such as long-distance triathlon. It captures the
100 progressive decline in the body’s ability to maintain constant performance outputs
101 due to factors such as cardiovascular drift (23), neuromuscular fatigue (24),
102 metabolic shifts (25), and carbohydrate depletion (7). Distinct from classical
103 performance determinants, durability reflects an athlete’s capacity to resist functional
104 declines in key physiological markers (including critical power (CP), V̇O₂max, and
105 movement economy) when exposed to sustained work rate (26, 27).

106 Assessment

107 Recent studies have attempted to operationalize durability by cardiovascular

108 response (i.e. cardiac drift) during prolonged exercise (25, 28) or by time-to-
109 exhaustion trials, providing a framework for its assessment in both laboratory and
110 field settings.

111 Training implications

112 Durability may me improved by strength training (10, 29) and both high- and low-
113 intensity training (30).

114

115 Fatigability

116 Definition & empirical evidence

117 Fatigue represents a critical constraint in human performance, operationally defined

118 as "an acute impairment of performance that includes both an increase in the
119 perceived effort necessary to exert a desired force and an eventual inability to
120 produce this force" (31). This dual-component framework – encompassing both the
121 subjective perception of effort and objective performance decline – aligns with
122 contemporary models describing fatigue as "a disabling symptom in which physical
123 and cognitive function is limited by interactions between performance fatigability and
124 perceived fatigability" (32).

125 In maximal repeated-effort contexts characteristic of endurance sports like

126 cycling, fatigability manifests distinctly as "the ability to repeat efforts at workloads
127 corresponding to or near mean maximal power output (MMP)" (Muriel et al., 2022)

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

128 such as in events requiring repeated surges (e.g., breakaways, hill climbs). As such
129 fatigability is characterized by the rate and magnitude of physiological strain and
130 performance loss that develops within a continuous task due to fatigue accumulation.
131 Unlike repeatability, fatigability reflects the vulnerability to functional decline under
132 load, largely independent of recovery capacity between efforts (33). In comparison to
133 durability, fatigability is characterized by the varying nature of intensity during the
134 competition. Fatigability captures how quickly an athlete experiences performance
135 decay when recovery is limited or absent. High fatigability is evident when
136 performance metrics – such as power output, velocity, or technical proficiency –
137 decline rapidly under load, particularly when comparing fatigued to fresh conditions
138 (14, 34, 35). Furthermore, recent studies have displayed differences between males
139 and females (15), depicting an important consideration for both the assessment and
140 physiological mechanisms of this concept.

141 Assessment

142 Operationally, fatigability can be assessed by measuring the rate of decline in

143 performance (e.g., power output (36) during sustained or repeated exercise bouts, or
144 by quantifying changes in key physiological markers (e.g., lactate accumulation, heart
145 rate drift) over time at a fixed workload. Such protocols focus on within-task decay,
146 contrasting with repeatability tests that allow for recovery periods. This enables
147 comparing the relative resistance to fatigue between individuals or across training
148 phases.

149 In professional cycling, fatigability has been shown to vary over the competitive
150 season, modulated by training intensity distribution and time spent below ventilatory
151 thresholds (26, 36). Importantly, an athlete may display low fatigability – sustaining
152 performance with minimal decline during prolonged tasks – yet simultaneously exhibit
153 poor repeatability due to limited recovery capacity between efforts. This differentiation
154 is crucial for coaching: an athlete might exhibit low decline in repeatability during
155 short-duration events yet struggle with durability in prolonged efforts. However,
156 Peeters, Barrett and Podlogar (21) emphasized that ecologically valid assessments
157 of fatigability must incorporate realistic preloads, nutritional controls, and stochastic
158 effort patterns to accurately reflect competitive demands. Without these
159 considerations, standard laboratory tests may fail to predict real-world performance.

160 Training implications

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

161 Mechanistically, fatigability is driven by neuromuscular and metabolic factors,
162 including substrate depletion (7), metabolite accumulation (37), and impairments in
163 muscle contractility (38, 39). Notably, training strategies that increase time spent at
164 low to moderate intensities appear to improve fatigue resistance and reduce
165 fatigability by enhancing oxidative capacity and metabolic efficiency (30).
166 Consequently, managing training intensity and cumulative training volume across a
167 season is essential for modulating fatigability and optimizing endurance performance.

168 Repeatability

169 Definition & empirical evidence

170 Repeatability describes an athlete’s capacity to recover and reproduce high-intensity

171 performance across multiple bouts, stages or heats with passive recovery in
172 between, inherently reflecting recovery kinetics and metabolic resilience between
173 efforts such as team sprint in cross-country-skiing. It specifically captures the ability
174 to regenerate performance following periods of partial or full recovery, distinguishing
175 it from the continuous performance decay characteristic of durability. This capability is
176 particularly critical in sports that require repeated high-intensity efforts interspersed
177 with lower-intensity phases, such as cycling stage races (21) with downhill sections
178 or drafting phases, and sprint formats in cross-country skiing (40).

179 Mechanistically, repeatability depends on the magnitude of glycogen depletion (14),

180 neuromuscular function (38), and hormonal and metabolic recovery processes (37)
181 that enable athletes to maintain performance despite accumulating fatigue. In cross-
182 country skiing sprint events (40), for example, repeatability is a key performance
183 determinant, as athletes must sustain near-maximal outputs across successive
184 heats. Further examples of sports where repeatability is increasingly important
185 include rowing, track cycling, and short-track speed skating (41). Moreover, the
186 display of repeatability may potentially be influenced more than the other concepts by
187 pacing strategy, as maximal efforts may not always be needed in heats or other
188 repeated bouts.

189 Assessment

190 Operationally, repeatability has been assessed by quantifying the decrement in

191 performance - such as mean maximal power output (MMP) (14, 15, 34) – across
192 repeated high-intensity bouts separated by standardized or ecologically valid

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

193 recovery periods. This differentiates repeatability from fatigability, as recovery
194 capacity is central to repeatability assessments.

195 Training implications

196 Importantly, repeatability appears to improve with maturation and accumulated

197 training experience (27), likely due to enhanced fatigue resistance and increased
198 metabolic efficiency including changes in fibre type distribution (42), particularly
199 under semi-fatigued conditions. This highlights repeatability as a recovery-
200 dependent, dynamic, and trainable performance dimension critical for success in
201 repeated-effort endurance sports – not unlike durability and fatigablity, but rather
202 neglected as a concept in the ongoing discussion.

203 Resilience

204 Definition & empirical evidence

205 “Resilience might […] be understood to represent the ability to resist fatigue and
206 maintain performance” (12). Resilience extends beyond physiological fatigue
207 resistance by incorporating the athlete’s adaptability to internal and external
208 stressors, including environmental and psychological challenges (43, 44). It describes
209 the capacity to maintain or regain physiological and mechanical function under
210 conditions of fatigue, environmental extremes, or other perturbations (10, 43).

211 For example, ultra-trail runners demonstrate resilience by adjusting pacing strategy to
212 maintain performance despite extreme environmental conditions such as heat,
213 altitude, and terrain variability. Emerging research conceptualizes resilience as a
214 multi-systemic attribute involving metabolic, neuromuscular, thermoregulatory, and
215 cognitive adaptations that enable athletes to sustain performance when exposed to
216 various stressors (43). This raises the question of whether current approaches to
217 measuring resilience are sensitive enough to detect the subtle differences that
218 ultimately determine competitive success.

219 Assessment

220 Operationally, resilience may be assessed by exposing athletes to controlled

221 perturbation protocols that simulate environmental (e.g., heat, hypoxia, dehydration)
222 or psychological (e.g., mental fatigue, cognitive dual tasks, pain) stressors and
223 quantifying the degree of performance preservation. This approach enables the

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

224 evaluation of an athlete's ability to maintain or restore function when challenged,
225 providing a more ecologically valid assessment of resilience relevant to real-world
226 endurance competitions.

227 Resilience is particularly critical in ultra-endurance and multi-stage events where the
228 ability to cope with environmental extremes and cumulative psychological strain often
229 dictates competitive outcomes. Future research should aim to refine resilience testing
230 by integrating multi-stressor protocols and identifying physiological, neuromuscular,
231 and cognitive markers predictive of resilience in specific sporting contexts including
232 over consecutive days or weeks.

233 Training implications

234 Interventions to improve resilience under adverse conditions may be acclimation to

235 unavoidable stressors such as heat, cold or altitude (16, 45). Other strategies may
236 include strategies both in- and out-of-competiton to ensure adequate sleep, fueling
237 and psychological well-being as well as physical integrity.

238

239 Interplay and Practical Implications

240 The interplay between durability, fatigability, resilience, and repeatability (Figure 1) is
241 multifaceted and context-specific, reflecting the complexity of real-world endurance
242 performances. Although interconnected in some ways, these constructs should not
243 be conflated as they represent distinct physiological and psychological capacities that
244 variably contribute to performance depending on the event characteristics,
245 environmental demands, and the athlete’s conditioning.

246 Importantly, these constructs do not contribute equally across disciplines or race
247 types:

248 • High durability but low resilience might impair success in endurance events
249 where environmental factors (heat, altitude) or psychological adversity
250 dominate.

251 • Conversely, an athlete with high durability but poor repeatability may perform
252 well in long time trials but struggle in multi-stage events requiring repeated
253 high-intensity efforts.

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

254 • The 2-hour marathon attempt (46) illustrates that even minimal degradations in
255 running economy or lactate threshold under fatigue critically impact
256 performance, underscoring durability and resilience as decisive factors.

257 From a practical standpoint, targeted and construct-specific assessments are

258 necessary to avoid conflating distinct performance dimensions (cf. Fig1, Tab1):

259 • Durability should be assessed through prolonged exercise protocols

260 exceeding 90 minutes, incorporating continuous monitoring of physiological
261 drifts such as heart rate, oxygen uptake, and lactate threshold shifts (11, 47).
262 Assessment should capture the magnitude and onset of physiological
263 deterioration over time, ideally under field-based or race-relevant conditions.

264 • Repeatability requires protocols involving repeated high-intensity efforts

265 separated by controlled recovery periods. Valid tests must simulate
266 competitive demands by integrating realistic pre-loads and adequate recovery
267 durations and nutritional strategies thereby isolating recovery kinetics as the
268 primary determinant.

269 • Fatigability is best evaluated by quantifying increased effort and/or the rate of
270 performance decline (such as power output or velocity decay) during
271 continuous or repeated tasks without recovery, both in fresh and pre-fatigued
272 states (14). This approach enables tracking how quickly an athlete
273 accumulates fatigue under standardized exercise conditions and across
274 training phases.

275 • Resilience assessments should expose athletes to environmental (e.g., heat,

276 hypoxia), metabolic or cognitive and mental stressors (e.g., mental fatigue
277 tasks, pain perception), combined with physiological measurements or
278 performance tests. Moving beyond traditional step test protocols , such
279 protocols aim to evaluate the ability to maintain or restore performance when
280 facing multi-systemic perturbations (9, 43, 44).

281 Importantly, while Joyner’s classical endurance model (comprising V̇O₂max, lactate
282 threshold, and movement economy) relies on standardized, quantifiable physiological
283 variables, the emerging constructs of durability, fatigability, resilience, and
284 repeatability remain operationally underdefined hindering refinement of his
285 “endurance performance” model. This lack of standardized metrics hampers reliable

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

286 assessment, limits cross-study comparability, and risks conceptual overlap. A
287 summary of definitions, assessment methods, characteristics, determinants and
288 phenotypes is provided in Table 1.

289 ***Table 1 near here***

290

291 Given the distinct physiological mechanisms and performance demands across
292 disciplines such as cycling, running, triathlon, and cross-country skiing, it is unlikely
293 that one-size-fits-all protocols will suffice. Instead, sport-specific variables and testing
294 approaches will be required to validly characterize each construct.

295 While interconnected, durability, fatigability, resilience, and repeatability represent

296 distinct capabilities influencing endurance performance in discipline-specific contexts.
297 Future research should prioritize the employment of clear conceptual definitions and
298 validated, sport-specific metrics rather than treating these constructs as
299 interchangeable umbrella terms for a generalized 'fourth dimension' of endurance
300 performance. Importantly, the practical relevance of these constructs emerges from
301 the applied sports science community, especially coaches who define and prioritize
302 them based on “competitive significance.” Their experiential insights ensure these
303 concepts are grounded in real-world performance demands, fostering a scientifically
304 rigorous yet ecologically valid framework for athlete assessment and development.

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

305

306

307

308 Figure 1: Illustration of the phenotype, relevant disciplines, operationalization and main determinants of the constructs: Durability,
309 Repeatability, Fatiguability and Resilience.
310

311

Construct Definition Possible Assessment Main Physiological determinants Phenotype Example Sport References
method characteristics

Durability deterioration in Speed-duration curve Loss in Cardiac drift (progressive increase in Continuous Marathon (7, 8, 47-49)
physiological analysis performance heart rate) “steady- running
characteristics over towards end of state”
Physiological testing Slow component of oxygen uptake Time trial
time during events exercise
prolonged exercise after prolonged Changes in lactate/ventilatory performance
exercise thresholds over time

Glycogen depletion over prolonged

exercise

Progressive decline in gross

efficiency or running economy

Neuromuscular fatigue markers (e.g.

reductions in force/power output)

Fatigability the (in)ability to Decline (%MMP) after Loss in Accumulation of lactate at fixed Stochastic Road-race (14, 15, 26, 34, 35,
repeat efforts at 20/30/40 kJ/kg performance workload over time efforts cycling 50)
workloads over repeated
corresponding to or effort & Heart rate drift at constant intensity Trail-running
near mean maximal intensity without recovery events
power output

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

 without rest Neuromuscular fatigue markers

Accumulation of metabolites
connected to fatigue

Repeatability capacity to recover Decline in Loss in Recovery kinetics of e.g. lactate, Repeated Multiple events (33, 51, 52)
and reproduce high- performance performance heart rate between bouts (near- & heats per
intensity measures (time, over repeated )maximal day as in e.g.
performance across ranking) over bouts Restoration rate of muscle glycogen performance rowing, short
multiple bouts, repeated bouts levels (of similar track, speed
stages or heats with Hormonal and metabolic recovery duration) skating, track
passive recovery in markers (e.g. cortisol, testosterone, cycling
between creatine kinase)

Resilience the capacity to All of the above + All of the All of the above + All of the All of the (9, 43, 44)
maintain or regain implementation of above + above above
physiological and adverse conditions Reduction in Maintenance or recovery of
mechanical function performance performance under environmental
under conditions of compared to stressor (e.g. heat, hypoxia,
fatigue, optimal dehydration)
environmental conditions Thermoregulatory responses (core
extremes, or other temperature stability, sweat rate)
perturbations
Hormonal stress markers (cortisol
response, adrenaline)

Cognitive and psychological markers

(mental fatigue, perceived exertion,
pain tolerance)

312

313 Table 1: Summary of the concepts: definition, possible assessment, main characteristics, physiological determinants, phenotype,
314 exmaples of relevant disciplinesand references

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

315
316 References
317 1. Joyner MJ. Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological
318 factors. J Appl Physiol (1985) 70: 683-687, 1991.
319 2. di Prampero PE, Atchou G, Brückner JC, and Moia C. The energetics of
320 endurance running. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 55: 259-266, 1986.
321 3. Conley DL, and Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance running
322 performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 357-360, 1980.
323 4. Costill DL, Branam G, Eddy D, and Sparks K. Determinants of marathon running
324 success. Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie einschließlich
325 Arbeitsphysiologie 29: 249-254, 1971.
326 5. Dill DB. Marathoner DeMar: physiological studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 35: 185-191,
327 1965.
328 6. Joyner MJ, and Coyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of
329 champions. The Journal of Physiology 586: 35-44, 2008.
330 7. Clark IE, Vanhatalo A, Thompson C, Joseph C, Black MI, Blackwell JR, Wylie LJ,
331 Tan R, Bailey SJ, Wilkins BW, Kirby BS, and Jones AM. Dynamics of the power-duration
332 relationship during prolonged endurance exercise and influence of carbohydrate ingestion.
333 Journal of Applied Physiology 127: 726-736, 2019.
334 8. Smyth B, Maunder E, Meyler S, Hunter B, and Muniz-Pumares D. Decoupling of
335 Internal and External Workload During a Marathon: An Analysis of Durability in 82,303
336 Recreational Runners. Sports Medicine 52: 2283-2295, 2022.
337 9. Hunter B, Maunder E, Jones AM, Gallo G, and Muniz-Pumares D. Durability as an
338 index of endurance exercise performance: Methodological considerations. Exp Physiol 2025.
339 10. Jones AM, and Kirby BS. Physiological Resilience: What Is It and How Might It Be
340 Trained? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 35: e70032, 2025.
341 11. Maunder E, Seiler S, Mildenhall MJ, Kilding AE, and Plews DJ. The Importance of
342 'Durability' in the Physiological Profiling of Endurance Athletes. Sports Med 51: 1619-1628,
343 2021.
344 12. Jones AM. The fourth dimension: physiological resilience as an independent
345 determinant of endurance exercise performance. The Journal of Physiology n/a: 2023.
346 13. Ansdell P, Thomas K, Hicks KM, Hunter SK, Howatson G, and Goodall S.
347 Physiological sex differences affect the integrative response to exercise: acute and chronic
348 implications. Experimental Physiology 105: 2007-2021, 2020.
349 14. Spragg J, Leo P, Giorgi A, Gonzalez BM, and Swart J. The intensity rather than the
350 quantity of prior work determines the subsequent downward shift in the power duration
351 relationship in professional cyclists. European Journal of Sport Science 24: 449-457, 2024.
352 15. Mateo-March M, Barranco-Gil D, Leo P, van Erp T, Muriel X, Javaloyes A,
353 Pallarés JG, Lucia A, and Valenzuela PL. Sex differences in durability: a field-based study
354 in professional cyclists. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2025.
355 16. Guy JH, Deakin GB, Edwards AM, Miller CM, and Pyne DB. Adaptation to Hot
356 Environmental Conditions: An Exploration of the Performance Basis, Procedures and Future
357 Directions to Optimise Opportunities for Elite Athletes. Sports Medicine 45: 303-311, 2015.
358 17. Clark SA, Bourdon PC, Schmidt W, Singh B, Cable G, Onus KJ, Woolford SM,
359 Stanef T, Gore CJ, and Aughey RJ. The effect of acute simulated moderate altitude on
360 power, performance and pacing strategies in well-trained cyclists. European Journal of
361 Applied Physiology 102: 45-55, 2007.
362 18. Parker Simpson L, Jones AM, Skiba PF, Vanhatalo A, and Wilkerson D. Influence
363 of Hypoxia on the Power-duration Relationship during High-intensity Exercise. Int J Sports
364 Med 36: 113-119, 2015.
365 19. Barley OR, Chapman DW, Blazevich AJ, and Abbiss CR. Acute Dehydration
366 Impairs Endurance Without Modulating Neuromuscular Function. Frontiers in Physiology
367 Volume 9 - 2018: 2018.

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

368 20. Funnell MP, Moss J, Brown DR, Mears SA, and James LJ. Perceived dehydration
369 impairs endurance cycling performance in the heat in active males. Physiol Behav 276:
370 114462, 2024.
371 21. Peeters WM, Barrett M, and Podlogar T. What is a cycling race simulation anyway:
372 a review on protocols to assess durability in cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology
373 2025.
374 22. Stevenson JD, Kilding AE, Plews DJ, and Maunder E. Prolonged cycling reduces
375 power output at the moderate-to-heavy intensity transition. European Journal of Applied
376 Physiology 122: 2673-2682, 2022.
377 23. Mattsson CM, Ståhlberg M, Larsen FJ, Braunschweig F, and Ekblom B. Late
378 cardiovascular drift observable during ultraendurance exercise. Medicine and science in
379 sports and exercise 43: 1162-1168, 2011.
380 24. Black MI, Jones AM, Blackwell JR, Bailey SJ, Wylie LJ, McDonagh STJ,
381 Thompson C, Kelly J, Sumners P, Mileva KN, Bowtell JL, and Vanhatalo A. Muscle
382 metabolic and neuromuscular determinants of fatigue during cycling in different exercise
383 intensity domains. Journal of Applied Physiology 122: 446-459, 2017.
384 25. Gallo G, Faelli EL, Ruggeri P, Filipas L, Codella R, Plews DJ, and Maunder E.
385 Power output at the moderate-to-heavy intensity transition decreases in a non-linear fashion
386 during prolonged exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology 124: 2353-2364, 2024.
387 26. Spragg J, Leo P, and Swart J. The relationship between training characteristics and
388 durability in professional cyclists across a competitive season. Eur J Sport Sci 23: 489-498,
389 2023.
390 27. Almquist NW, Hansen J, and Rønnestad BR. Development of Cycling Performance
391 Variables and Durability in Female and Male National Team Cyclists: From Junior to Senior.
392 Med Sci Sports Exerc 55: 2053-2063, 2023.
393 28. Rothschild JA, Gallo G, Hamilton K, Stevenson JD, Dudley-Rode H, Charoensap
394 T, Plews DJ, Kilding AE, and Maunder E. Durability of the moderate-to-heavy intensity
395 transition can be predicted using readily available markers of physiological decoupling.
396 European Journal of Applied Physiology 2025.
397 29. Zanini M, Folland JP, Wu H, and Blagrove RC. Strength Training Improves Running
398 Economy Durability and Fatigued High-Intensity Performance in Well-Trained Male Runners:
399 A Randomized Control Trial. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2025.
400 30. Matomäki P, Heinonen OJ, Nummela A, Laukkanen J, Auvinen E-P, Pirkola L,
401 and Kyröläinen H. Durability is improved by both low and high intensity endurance training.
402 Frontiers in Physiology 14: 2023.
403 31. Enoka RM, and Stuart DG. Neurobiology of muscle fatigue. J Appl Physiol (1985)
404 72: 1631-1648, 1992.
405 32. Enoka RM, and Duchateau J. Translating Fatigue to Human Performance. Med Sci
406 Sports Exerc 48: 2228-2238, 2016.
407 33. Muriel X, Mateo-March M, Valenzuela PL, Zabala M, Lucia A, Pallares JG, and
408 Barranco-Gil D. Durability and repeatability of professional cyclists during a Grand Tour.
409 European Journal of Sport Science 22: 1797-1804, 2022.
410 34. Leo P, Giorgi A, Spragg J, Gonzalez BM, and Mujika I. Impact of prior accumulated
411 work and intensity on power output in elite/international level road cyclists—a pilot study.
412 German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52: 673-677, 2022.
413 35. Leo P, Spragg J, Podlogar T, Lawley JS, and Mujika I. Power profiling and the
414 power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review. Eur J Appl Physiol 122: 301-316,
415 2022.
416 36. Voet JG, Lamberts RP, Viribay A, de Koning JJ, and van Erp T. Durability and
417 Underlying Physiological Factors: How Do They Change Throughout a Cycling Season in
418 Semiprofessional Cyclists? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 19:
419 809-819, 2024.
420 37. Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Lakomy HK, and Nevill AM. Recovery of
421 power output and muscle metabolites following 30 s of maximal sprint cycling in man. The
422 Journal of Physiology 482: 467-480, 1995.

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

423 38. Abbiss CR, and Laursen PB. Models to explain fatigue during prolonged endurance
424 cycling. Sports Med 35: 865-898, 2005.
425 39. Leo P, Borja M-G, Iñigo M, and and Giorgi A. Mechanistic influence of the torque
426 cadence relationship on power output during exhaustive all-out field tests in professional
427 cyclists. J Sports Sci 43: 887-894, 2025.
428 40. Hébert-Losier K, Zinner C, Platt S, Stöggl T, and Holmberg H-C. Factors that
429 Influence the Performance of Elite Sprint Cross-Country Skiers. Sports Medicine 47: 319-
430 342, 2017.
431 41. Kowalski T, Rębiś K, Malczewska-Lenczowska J, Klusiewicz A, Starczewski M,
432 Klich S, and Kasiak P. Optimizing Recovery Strategies in Elite Speedskating: A
433 Comparative Analysis of Different Modalities. Journal of Functional Morphology and
434 Kinesiology 10: 34, 2025.
435 42. Coyle EF. Integration of the physiological factors determining endurance
436 performance ability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 23: 25-63, 1995.
437 43. Marino FE, Sibson BE, and Lieberman DE. The evolution of human fatigue
438 resistance. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 192: 411-422, 2022.
439 44. Marcora SM, Staiano W, and Manning V. Mental fatigue impairs physical
440 performance in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology 106: 857-864, 2009.
441 45. Green HJ. Altitude acclimatization, training and performance. Journal of Science and
442 Medicine in Sport 3: 299-312, 2000.
443 46. Jones AM, Kirby BS, Clark IE, Rice HM, Fulkerson E, Wylie LJ, Wilkerson DP,
444 Vanhatalo A, and Wilkins BW. Physiological demands of running at 2-hour marathon race
445 pace. Journal of Applied Physiology 130: 369-379, 2021.
446 47. Nuuttila O-P, Laatikainen-Raussi V, Vohlakari K, Laatikainen-Raussi I, and
447 Ihalainen JK. Durability in recreational runners: effects of 90-min low-intensity exercise on
448 the running speed at the lactate threshold. European Journal of Applied Physiology 1-9,
449 2024.
450 48. Clark IE, Vanhatalo A, Bailey SJ, Wylie LJ, Kirby BS, Wilkins BW, and Jones AM.
451 Effects of Two Hours of Heavy-Intensity Exercise on the Power–Duration Relationship.
452 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 50: 1658-1668, 2018.
453 49. Zanini M, Folland JP, and Blagrove RC. The Effect of 90 and 120 Min of Running on
454 the Determinants of Endurance Performance in Well-Trained Male Marathon Runners.
455 Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 35: e70076, 2025.
456 50. Mateo-March M, Barranco-Gil D, Hernández-Belmonte A, Javaloyes A, Muriel X,
457 Pallarés JG, Lucia A, and Valenzuela PL. Reliability of the durability concept in
458 professional cyclists: a field-based study. Int J Sports Med 2025.
459 51. Zory R, Millet G, Schena F, Bortolan L, and Rouard A. Fatigue induced by a cross-
460 country skiing KO sprint. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 2144-2150, 2006.
461 52. McGawley K, Van Waerbeke C, Westberg K-J, and Andersson EP. Maximizing
462 recovery time between knock-out races improves sprint cross-country skiing performance.
463 Journal of Sport and Health Science 11: 21-29, 2022.
464

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.

 Power Output
Velocity
Durability

VO₂max [t]

Power Output
Velocity
Fatigability
[t]

Lactate Performance
outcome for
threshold specific task

Power Output
Velocity
Repeatability
[t]

Movement
economy

Power Output
Resilience

Velocity
[t]

Power Output
Velocity
[t]

Power Output
Velocity
[t]

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (2806:02F0:9260:D48C:2907:B6EF:F310:57D0) on July 24, 2025.