Validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter

The aim of this investigation was to assess the validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter. Nine participants completed trials on a Monark ergometer fitted with Ergomopro and SRM powermeters simultaneously recording power output. Each participant completed multiple trials at power outputs ranging from 50 to 450 W. The work stages recorded were 60 s in duration and were repeated three times. Participants also completed a single trial on a cycle ergometer designed to assess bilateral contributions to work output (Lode Excaliber Sport PFM). The power output during the trials was significantly different between all three systems, (p < 0.01) 231.2 +/- 114.2 W, 233.0 +/- 112.4 W, 227.8 +/- 108.8 W for the Monark, SRM and Ergomopro system, respectively. When the bilateral contributions were factored into the analysis, there were no significant differences between the powermeters (p = 0.58). The reliability of the Ergomopro system (CV%) was 2.31 % (95 % CI 2.13 - 2.52 %) compared to 1.59 % (95 % CI 1.47 to 1.74 %) for the Monark, and 1.37 % (95 % CI 1.26 - 1.50 %) for the SRM powermeter. These results indicate that the Ergomopro system has acceptable accuracy under these conditions. However, based on the reliability data, the increased variability of the Ergomopro system and bilateral balance issues have to be considered when using this device.     

Reliability of sprint test indices in well-trained cyclists

The study aim was to assess reliability of repeated laboratory sprint tests in well-trained endurance cyclists. Eleven male cyclists (mean +/- standard deviation: 27 +/- 6 yr, 1.79 +/- 0.04 m, 70.1 +/- 3.3 kg) performed a maximal 30-second sprint test on four separate occasions using their own bicycle fitted with an SRM powermeter on a Kingcycle air-braked ergometer. Peak power output (W (peak)), mean power (W (mean)) and an index of fatigue (FI) were calculated. Three minutes post sprint, capillarised blood lactate measurements were taken and analysed. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between trials for W (peak), W (mean), FI and blood lactate concentration. Repeatability of W (peak), W (mean), and fatigue index improved across trials 2 and 3 when compared to trials 1 and 2. The highest CV for these variables was recorded between trials 3 and 4. The CV for W (peak) was 4.5 +/- 1.6 %, W (mean) 2.4 +/- 1.2 %, and FI 17.2 +/- 7.1 %. Intraclass reliability coefficients were 0.93 (95 % CI 0.84 - 0.98), 0.94 (95 % CI 0.86 - 0.98) and 0.89 (95 % CI 0.69 - 0.95) respectively. Blood lactate concentration ranged between 5.35 and 14.52 mmol.l(-1), with a mean CV of 12.1 +/- 4.2 %. The CV for trials 2 and 3 revealed the highest CV for blood lactate concentration (15.1 %). The lowest CV for this variable (10.2 %) was recorded between trials 3 and 4. The intraclass reliability coefficient for blood lactate concentration was 0.79 (95 % CI 0.58 - 0.93). The results of this study indicate that there is no improvement in the reliability of sprint test indices when assessing well-trained, experienced cyclists, riding on their own cycle equipment.     

Reproducibility of a laboratory-based 40-km cycle time-trial on a stationary wind-trainer in highly trained cyclists

The purpose of the present study was to examine the reproducibility of laboratory-based 40-km cycle time-trial performance on a stationary wind-trainer. Each week, for three consecutive weeks, and on different days, forty-three highly trained male cyclists (x +/- SD; age = 25 +/- 6 y; mass = 75 +/- 7 kg; peak oxygen uptake [VO (2)peak] = 64.8 +/- 5.2 ml x kg (-1) x min (-1)) performed: 1) a VO (2)peak test, and 2) a 40-km time-trial on their own racing bicycle mounted to a stationary wind-trainer (Cateye - Cyclosimulator). Data from all tests were compared using a one-way analysis of variance. Performance on the second and third 40-km time-trials were highly related (r = 0.96; p < 0.001), not significantly different (57 : 21 +/- 2 : 57 vs. 57 : 12 +/- 3 : 14 min:s), and displayed a low coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.9 +/- 0.7 %. Although the first 40-km time-trial (58 : 43 +/- 3 : 17 min:s) was not significantly different from the second and third tests (p = 0.06), inclusion of the first test in the assessment of reliability increased within-subject CV to 3.0 +/- 2.9 %. 40-km time-trial speed (km x h (-1)) was significantly (p < 0.001) related to peak power output (W; r = 0.75), VO (2)peak (l x min (-1); r = 0.53), and the second ventilatory turnpoint (l x min (-1); r = 0.68) measured during the progressive exercise tests. These data demonstrate that the assessment of 40-km cycle time-trial performance in well-trained endurance cyclists on a stationary wind-trainer is reproducible, provided the athletes perform a familiarization trial.     

The validity of power output recorded during exercise performance tests using a Kingcycle air-braked cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter

This study assessed the validity of power output recorded using an air-braked cycle ergometer (Kingcycle) when compared with a power measuring crankset (SRM). For part one of the study thirteen physically active subjects completed a continuous incremental exercise test (OBLA), for part two of the study twelve trained cyclists completed two tests; a maximal aerobic power test (MAP) and a 16.1 km time-trial (16.1 km TT). The following were compared; the peak power output (PPO) recorded for 1 min during MAP, the average power output for the duration of the time-trial and power output recorded during each stage of OBLA. For all tests, power output recorded using Kingcycle was significantly higher than SRM (P < 0.001). Ratio limits of agreement between SRM and Kingcycle for OBLA showed a bias (P < 0.00) of 0.90 (95%CI = 0.90-0.91) with a random error of X or / 1.07, and for PPO and 16.1 km TT ratio limits of agreement were 0.90 (95%CI = 0.88-0.92) X or / 1.07 and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.90-0.94) X or / 1.07, respectively. These data revealed that the Kingcycle ergometry system did not provide a valid measure of power output when compared with SRM.     

Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the effects of cycling position (seated or standing) during level-ground and uphill cycling on gross external efficiency (GE) and economy (EC). METHODS: Eight well-trained cyclists performed in a randomized order five trials of 6-min duration at 75% of peak power output either on a velodrome or during the ascent of a hill in seated or standing position. GE and EC were calculated by using the mechanical power output that was measured by crankset (SRM) and energy consumption by a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b(2)). In addition, each subject performed three 30-s maximal sprints on a laboratory-based cycle ergometer or in the field either in seated or standing position. RESULTS: GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 +/- 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 +/- 0.33 kJ x L(-1) (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly ( < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher ( < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher ( < 0.01) in standing (803 +/- 103 W) than in seated position (635 +/- 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 +/- 81 W). CONCLUSION: Gradient or body position appears to have a negligible effect on external efficiency in field-based high-intensity cycling exercise. Greater short-term power can be produced in standing position, presumably due to a greater force developed per revolution. However, the technical features of the standing position may be one of the most determining factors affecting the metabolic responses.     

Reliability/Validity of the fortius trainer

This study examined the reliability/validity of power output measured using the Fortius Virtual Reality cycle trainer. 10 cyclists (age: 28±6 years; V˙O (2)max: 60.9±7.2?ml · kg (-1) · min (-1); peak power: 393±82?W) completed three 20?km time trials on a Fortius cycle trainer. During each time trial, power output was measured at 1?Hz using the Fortius internal software and a PowerTap power monitor. Validity calculated for the Fortius trainer; Pearson correlation coefficient (r=0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99; p<0.01) and typical error of estimate (3.5%; 95% CI: 3.2-3.9%), was similar to other established laboratory ergometers. No differences (F (2,16)=0.32; p=0.73) in mean 20?km power were observed between trial 1 (253±46?W), 2 (258±49?W), or 3 (255±50?W). Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV)) was better between trial 2 and 3 (ICC=1.00 (CI: 0.98-1.00); CV: 1.6% (CI: 1.1-3.3%)) compared with trial 1 and 2 (ICC=0.98 (CI: 0.91-1.00); CV: 3.3% (CI: 2.2-6.4%)). The Fortius cycle trainer is a valid and reliable device for the measurement of power output in cyclists, thus providing an alternative to larger more expensive laboratory ergometers.     

Validity and reliability of the Polar S710 mobile cycling powermeter

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a new mobile bike-powermeter, Polar S710, in laboratory and field conditions, against the SRM crankset. Eight trained subjects performed in a random order six uphill cycling trials of 6-min duration at three different intensities (60 %, 75 % and 90 % of peak power output [PPO]). In addition, 44 other cyclists performed in the laboratory three cycling bouts each of 5-min duration at three different pedal cadences (60, 90 and 110 rpm) at the same absolute intensity (approximately 150 W). Bias between the two devices was correlated (r = 0.79) with the mean power in field conditions; with the S710 reading higher (p < 0.001) by 7.4 +/- 5.1 % than the SRM in the range of power studied. In other words, the mean differences between the two devices increased as the exercise intensity increased. The mean power output obtained with S710 was significantly higher (p < 0.001) by 6.8 +/- 7.9 W (bias x divided-by random error = 1.042 x divided-by 1.049) than the power obtained with SRM in laboratory conditions. Ninety-five percent of the differences of power measured with the S710 ranged between 21.4 W above to 8.3 W below the SRM in laboratory conditions. Mean differences between the two devices increased as the pedalling cadence increased (0.6 +/- 3.8 %, 4.4 +/- 3.7 % and 7.8 +/- 4.4 % at cadence of 60, 90 and 110 rpm respectively). Coefficients of variation in mean power across the four field-based trials at 75 % PPO was 2.2 % and 1.9 % for S710 and SRM, respectively. In conclusion, the S710 recorded power outputs higher than the SRM system in both field and laboratory conditions. Pedalling cadence and exercise intensity influenced differences in mean power. These characteristics make S710 a useful device for recreational cyclists but not for elite cyclists or scientists who require a greater accuracy and validity. However, the limits of the present study (short-term duration testing; single tested variables as intensity, posture, pedalling cadence) require further investigation for generalizing the present results to extensive use in "real world" cycling.     

Power output measurement during treadmill cycling

The study aim was to consider the use of a motorised treadmill as a cycling ergometry system by assessing predicted and recorded power output values during treadmill cycling. Fourteen male cyclists completed repeated cycling trials on a motorised treadmill whilst riding their own bicycle fitted with a mobile ergometer. The speed, gradient and loading via an external pulley system were recorded during 20-s constant speed trials and used to estimate power output with an assumption about the contribution of rolling resistance. These values were then compared with mobile ergometer measurements. To assess the reliability of measured power output values, four repeated trials were conducted on each cyclist. During level cycling, the recorded power output was 257.2 +/- 99.3 W compared to the predicted power output of 258.2 +/- 99.9 W (p > 0.05). For graded cycling, there was no significant difference between measured and predicted power output, 268.8 +/- 109.8 W vs. 270.1 +/- 111.7 W, p > 0.05, SEE 1.2 %. The coefficient of variation for mobile ergometer power output measurements during repeated trials ranged from 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.2 - 2.0 %) to 1.8 % (95 % CI 1.5 - 2.4 %). These results indicate that treadmill cycling can be used as an ergometry system to assess power output in cyclists with acceptable accuracy.     

Reproducibility of a 6-s maximal cycling sprint test

The purpose of this study was to examine the reproducibility in measures of power output during a 6-s, maximal cycling sprint test. Eleven healthy, moderately-trained males (mean+/-S.D.; age=19+/-1 year; height=181.5+/-6.2 cm; mass=76.9+/-9.5 kg; peak oxygen uptake 54.9+/-6.1 mL kg(-1)min(-1)) performed a 6-s standing sprint on a front-access cycle ergometer on four separate occasions. Peak power output (PPO) was significantly higher (4.9%; P<0.05) in trial 2 compared with trial 1, whereas there were no significant differences between trials 2, 3 and 4. Similarly, the mean power output (MPO) for trial 2 was higher (5.8%; P<0.05) than in trial 1, but there were no difference across trials 2, 3 and 4. The within-subject coefficient of variation (CV) from trials 2 to 4 was 2.8 and 2.9% for PPO and MPO, respectively, while the CV calculated using data from the third and fourth trial was lower: 1.8 and 2.5% for PPO and MPO, respectively. The results of the study showed that reliable power outputs can be obtained after one familiarization session in subjects unfamiliar with maximal cycling sprint exercise. However, the inclusion of an extra familiarization session ensured more stable power outputs. Therefore, two trials should allow adequate familiarization with the maximal 6-s cycling test.     

The effect of variable gradients on pacing in cycling time-trials

It has been reported that performance in cycling time-trials is enhanced when power is varied in response to gradient although such a mechanical pacing strategy has never been confirmed experimentally in the field. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the efficacy of mechanical pacing by comparing a constant power strategy of 255 W with a variable power strategy that averaged to 255 W over an undulating time-trial course. 20 experienced cyclists completed 4 trials over a 4 km course with 2 trials at an average constant power of 253 W and 2 trials where power was varied in response to gradient and averaged 260 W. Time normalised to 255 W was 411±31.1 s for the constant power output trials and 399±29.5 s for the variable power output trials. The variable power output strategy therefore reduced completion time by 12±8 s (2.9%) which was significant ( P<0.001). Participants experienced difficulty in applying a constant power strategy over an undulating course which acted to reduce their time gain. It is concluded that a variable power strategy can improve cycling performance in a field time-trial where the gradient is not constant.     

Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance

In this study we evaluated the physiological and biomechanical responses of "elite-national class" (i.e., group 1; N = 9) and "good-state class" (i.e., group 2; N = 6) cyclists while they simulated a 40 km time-trial in the laboratory by cycling on an ergometer for 1 h at their highest power output. Actual road racing 40 km time-trial performance was highly correlated with average absolute power during the 1 h laboratory performance test (r = -0.88; P less than 0.001). In turn, 1 h power output was related to each cyclists' VO2 at the blood lactate threshold (r = 0.93; P less than 0.001). Group 1 was not different from group 2 regarding VO2max (approximately 70 ml.kg-1.min-1 and 5.01 l.min-1) or lean body weight. However, group 1 bicycled 40 km on the road 10% faster than group 2 (P less than 0.05; 54 vs 60 min). Additionally, group 1 was able to generate 11% more power during the 1 h performance test than group 2 (P less than 0.05), and they averaged 90 +/- 1% VO2max compared with 86 +/- 2% VO2max in group 2 (P = 0.06). The higher performance power output of group 1 was produced primarily by generating higher peak torques about the center of the crank by applying larger vertical forces to the crank arm during the cycling downstroke. Compared with group 2, group 1 also produced higher peak torques and vertical forces during the downstroke even when cycling at the same absolute work rate as group 2. Factors possibly contributing to the ability of group 1 to produce higher "downstroke power" are a greater percentage of Type I muscle fibers (P less than 0.05) and a 23% greater (P less than 0.05) muscle capillary density compared with group 2. We have also observed a strong relationship between years of endurance training and percent Type I muscle fibers (r = 0.75; P less than 0.001). It appears that "elite-national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training.     

Reproducibility of a laboratory based 20-km time trial evaluation in competitive cyclists using the Velotron Pro ergometer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of a 20-km cycling time trial using the Velotron cycle ergometer in competitive cyclists. Twenty male cyclists (V.O (2max) = 68.5 +/- 3.6 ml . kg (-1) . min (-1); peak power (P (peak)) = 469 +/- 33 W) participated in this study. Each subject performed a V.O (2max) test and 3 separate 20-km time trials (TT1, TT2, and TT3). Data from trials were compared using a one-way ANOVA. Coefficients of variation (CV) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated between trials. Values are mean +/- SD unless otherwise noted. Performance time T (tot) (30.03 +/- 1.24, 30.12 +/- 1.21, and 30.14 +/- 1.21 min) and mean absolute power (P (mean)) (326 +/- 35, 323 +/- 35, 322 +/- 34 Watts) were not significantly different across TT1 - TT3. P (mean) was highly related between TT1 - TT2 (r = 0.96; p < 0.01) and TT2 - TT3 (r = 0.97; p < 0.01). A low CV was also demonstrated between trials for P (mean) (TT1 - TT2 = 2.1 %, CI = 1.6 % to 3.1 %; TT2 - TT3 = 1.9 %, CI = 1.4 % to 2.8 %). P (peak) and P (mean) were both correlated to T (tot) in TT1 with P (mean) accounting for most of the variance in T (tot) (R (2) = 0.993). These data show that performance in a 20-km time trial using the Velotron ergometer is highly reproducible in competitive cyclists. Furthermore, the CV variance demonstrated between trials is comparable to that expected during actual performance in elite athletes.     

Day to day variation in time trial cycling performance.

In an attempt to assess the reproducibility of laboratory cycling performance, eight well-trained (VO2max = 4.6 +/- 0.2 l.min-1) male cyclists completed 12 trials involving 4 successive performance rides at each of three total work outputs (approximately 1600, 200, and 14 kilojoules, respectively). These trials, designated as long, medium, and short trials (LT, MT, ST), represented exercise bouts of 105.12 +/- 0.41, 12.03 +/- 0.17 and 0.55 +/- 0.11 minutes, respectively. The trials, conducted on a computerized cycle ergometer in an isokinetic mode, were separated by a minimum of 72 hrs. All trials for each subject were completed at the same time of day. In all trials, subjects were allowed to select the pace in order to complete the ride in the shortest possible time. The mean coefficient of variation (CV) for performance time in each trial was: LT = +/- 1.01%, MT = +/- 0.95%, and ST = +/- 2.43%, respectively. The CV for performance time in ST was significantly greater than the CV in either LT or MT. In LT, performance time was significantly faster, and the mean % VO2max was significantly higher in trial 4 versus trials 1-3. There was no order effect in the MT or ST rides. The CV for mean VO2 (l.min-1), mean % VO2max, and RER during the LT rides were +/- 3.02%, +/- 3.64%, and +/- 3.53%, respectively. These data suggest that trained cyclists have the ability to reproduce endurance performance with a CV of approximately 1.0% in a time-trial protocol.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A reproducible and variable intensity cycling performance protocol for warm conditions

This study was undertaken to assess the reproducibility of a variable intensitycycling protocol using subjects of varying abilities, under warm humid conditions.Eleven subjects (Age 21.4+/-2.6 years; VO2peak 3.30+/-0.9 l x min(-1); peak power 322.8+/-86.3 W; mean+/-SD) performed a 60 min cycling trial punctuated with six one-min "all-out" sprints at 10-min intervals on three occasions 5-14 days apart. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were set at 33+/-0.7 degrees C and 63+/-2.0%, respectively. Subjects used their own bicycle mounted to an electromagnetic trainer and were only permitted to monitor elapsed time and heart rate. Repeatability was assessed using the limits of agreement which were best between trials 2 and 3 where the distance cycled was -0.54 km below and 1.34 km above the distance cycled for trial 2. The co-efficient of variation (CV) for distance for three trials was 3.58%. For trials 1 and 2 the CV was 3.54% (r = 0.97, p< 0.001) decreasing to 1.34% (r = 0.99, p< 0.001) for trials 2 and 3. The intra-class correlation for three trials was 0.93. Distance for trial 1 (26.3+/-5.0 km; p< 0.05) was less than trials 2 (27.7+/-5.7 km) and 3 (28.1+/-5.6 km). It was concluded that repeatability for this performance protocol with cyclists of varying abilities In warm humid conditions was acceptable given at least one familiarisation trial. However, it is not yet known whether other protocols designed for moderate environments are applicable to less favorable conditions. Further studies are needed before results of treatment effects under differing ambient conditions can be fully understood and assigned appropriate significance.     

Pacing strategy in simulated cycle time-trials is based on perceived rather than actual distance

This study determined the pacing strategies and performance responses of six well-trained cyclists/triathletes (peak O2 uptake 66.4+/-3.7 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1), mean+/-SD) during seven simulated time-trials (TT) conducted on a wind-braked cycle ergometer. All subjects first performed a 40 km familiarisation ride (TT1). They were then informed they would be riding a further four 40 km TT for the purpose of a reliability study. Instead, the actual distances ridden for the next three TT were a random order of 34 (TT2), 40 (TT3) and 46 km (TT4). The only feedback given to subjects during TT1-4 was the percentage distance of that ride remaining. During a further 40 km TT (TT5) subjects were allowed to view their heart rate (HR) responses throughout the ride. Despite the significantly different performance times across the three distances (47:23+/-4:23 vs 55:57+/-3:24 vs 65:41+/-3:56 min for the 34, 40 and 46 km respectively, P<0.001), average power output (296+/-48 vs 294+/-48 vs 286+/-40 W) and HR (173+/-11 vs 174+/-12 vs 173+/-12 beats x min(-1)) were similar. The true nature of the first part of the study was then revealed to subjects who subsequently completed an additional 34 km and 46 km TT TT6-7) in which the actual and perceived distance ridden was the same. Power output and HR responses were similar for both unknown (TT2 and TT6) and known (TT4 and TT7) rides for both distances: 296+/-48 vs 300+/-55 W and 173+/-11 vs 177+/-11 beats x min(-1) (34 km) and 286+/-40 vs 273+/-42 W and 173+/-12 vs 174+/-12 beats x min(-1) (46 km). In conclusion, well-trained cyclists rode at similar power outputs and HR during time trials they perceived to be the same distance, but which varied in actual distance from 34 to 46 km.     

Effects of front and dual suspension mountain bike systems on uphill cycling performance

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of front suspension (FS) and dual suspension (DS) mountain bike designs on time-trial performance and physiological responses during uphill cycling on a paved- and off-road course. METHODS: Six trained male cyclists (35.6 +/- 9 yr, 76.9 +/- 8.8 kg, VO2 peak 58.4 +/- 5.6 mL x kg(-1) x min-1)) were timed using both suspension systems on an uphill paved course (1.62 km, 183-m elevation gain) and an uphill off-road course (1.38 km, 123-m elevation gain). During the field trials, VO2 was monitored continuously with a KB1-C portable gas analyzer, and power output with an SRM training system. RESULTS: On the paved course, total ride time on FS (10.4 +/- 0.7 min) and DS (10.4 +/- 0.8 min) was not different (P > 0.05). Similarly, total ride time on the off-road course was not significantly different on the FS bike (8.3 +/- 0.7 min) versus the DS bike (8.4 +/- 1.1 min). For each of the course conditions, there was no significant difference between FS and DS in average minute-by-minute VO2, whether expressed in absolute (ABS; L x min(-1)) or relative (REL; mL x [kg body wt +/- kg bike wt(-1)] x min(-1) values. Average power output (W) was significantly lower for ABS FS versus DS (266.1 +/- 61.6 W vs 341.9 +/- 61.1 W, P < 0.001) and REL FS versus DS (2.90 +/- 0.55 W x kg(-1) vs 3.65 +/- 0.53 W x kg(-1), P < 0.001) during the off-road trials. Power output on the paved course was also significantly different for ABS FS versus DS (266.6 +/- 52 W vs 345.4 +/- 53.4 W, P < 0.001) and REL FS versus DS (2.99 +/- 0.55 W x kg(-1) vs 3.84 +/- 0.54 W x kg(-1), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that despite significant differences in power output between FS and DS mountain bike systems during uphill cycling, these differences do not translate into significant differences in oxygen cost or time to complete either a paved- or off-road course.     

Reliability of a high-intensity endurance cycling test

This study assessed the reproducibility of performance and selected metabolic variables during a variable high-intensity endurance cycling test. 8 trained male cyclists (age: 35.9 ± 7.7 years, maximal oxygen uptake: 54.3 ± 3.9 mL·kg?-?1·min?-?1) completed 4 high-intensity cycling tests, performed in consecutive weeks. The protocol comprised: 20 min of progressive incremental exercise, where the power output was increased by 5% maximal workload (Wmax) every 5 min from 70% Wmax to 85% Wmax; ten 90 s bouts at 90% Wmax, separated by 180 s at 55% Wmax; 90% Wmax until volitional exhaustion. Blood samples were drawn and heart rate was monitored throughout the protocol. There was no significant order effect between trials for time to exhaustion (mean: 4?113.0 ± 60.8 s) or total distance covered (mean: 4?6126.2 ± 1?968.7 m). Total time to exhaustion and total distance covered showed very high reliability with a mean coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.6% (95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 0.0 ± 124.3 s) and CV of 2.2% (95% CI 0.0 ± 1904.9 m), respectively. Variability in plasma glucose concentrations across the time points was very small (CV 0.46-4.3%, mean 95% CI 0.0 ± 0.33 to 0.0 ± 0.94 mmol·L?-?1). Plasma lactate concentrations showed no test order effect. The reliability of performance and metabolic variables makes this protocol a valid test to evaluate nutritional interventions in endurance cycling.     

Reliability of an air-braked ergometer to record peak power during a maximal cycling test

PURPOSE: To assess the reliability of the Kingcycle ergometer, this study compared peak power recorded using a Kingcycle and SRMTM power meters during Kingcycle maximal aerobic power tests. METHODS: The study was completed in two parts: for part 1, nine subjects completed three maximal tests with a stabilizing kit attached to the Kingcycle rig and calibration of the Kingcycle checked against SRM (MAP(C)); and for part 2, nine subjects completed two maximal tests without the stabilizing kit and the Kingcycle calibrated using the standard procedure (MAP(S)). Each MAP(C) test was separated by 1 wk; however, MAPs tests were separated by 54 +/- 32 d, (mean +/- SD). Testing procedure was repeated for each MAP and peak power output was calculated as the highest average power output recorded during any 60-s period of the MAP test using the Kingcycle (King(PPO)) and SRM (SRM(PPO)). RESULTS: Coefficient of variations (CVs) for King(PPO) were larger than those of SRM(PPO); 2.0% (95%CI = 1.5-3.0) versus 1.3% (95%CI = 1.0-2.0) and 4.6% (95%CI = 2.7-7.6) versus 3.6% (95%CI = 2.1-6.0) for MAPC( and MAP(S), respectively. During all tests, King(PPO) was higher than SRM(PPO) by an average of approximately 10% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Investigators should be aware of the discrepancy between the two systems when assessing peak power and that SRM cranks provide a more reproducible measure of peak power than the Kingcycle ergometer.     

Reliability of power output during dynamic cycling

The aims of the present study were to determine the influence of familiarization on the reliability of power output during a dynamic 30-km cycling trial and to determine the test-retest reliability following a 6-week period. Nine trained male cyclists performed five self-paced 30-km cycling trials, which contained three 250-m sprints and three 1-km sprints. The first three of these trials were performed in consecutive weeks (Week 1, Week 2 and Week 3), while the latter two trials were consecutively conducted 6 wk following (Week 9 and Week 10). Subjects were instructed to complete each sprint, as well as the entire trial in the least time possible. Reproducibility in average power output over the entire 30-km trial for Week 2 and 3 alone (coefficient of variation, CV = 2.4 %, intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.93) was better than for Week 1 and 2 (CV = 5.5 %, ICC = 0.77) and Week 9 and 10 alone (CV = 5.3 %, ICC = 0.57). These results indicate that high reliability during a dynamic 30-km cycling trial may be obtained after a single familiarization trial when subsequent trials are performed within 7 days. However, if cyclists do not perform trials for six weeks, the same level of reliability is not maintained.     

Sodium phosphate loading improves laboratory cycling time-trial performance in trained cyclists

Sodium phosphate loading has been reported to increase maximal oxygen uptake (6–12%), however its influence on endurance performance has been ambiguous. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of sodium phosphate loading on laboratory 16.1 km cycling time-trial performance. Six trained male cyclists ( peak, 64.1 ± 2.8 ml kg⁻¹ min⁻¹; mean ± S.D.) took part in a randomised double-blind crossover study. Upon completion of a control trial (C), participants ingested either 1 g of tribasic dodecahydrate sodium phosphate (SP) or lactose placebo (P) four times daily for 6 days prior to performing a 16.1 km (10 mile) cycling time-trial under laboratory conditions. Power output and heart rate were continually recorded throughout each test, and at two points during each time-trial expired air samples and capillary blood samples were taken. There was a 14-day period between each of the supplemented time-trials. After SP loading mean power was greater than for P and C (C, 322 ± 15 W; P, 317 ± 16 W; SP, 347 ± 19 W; ANOVA, P < 0.05) and time to complete the 16.1 km was shorter than P, but not C (ANOVA, P < 0.05). During the SP trial, relative to the P, mean changes were mean power output +9.8 ± 8.0% (±95% confidence interval); time −3.0 ± 2.9%. There was a tendency towards higher after SP loading (ANOVA, P = 0.07). Heart rate, , RER and blood lactate concentration were not significantly affected by SP loading. Sodium phosphate loading significantly improved mean power output and 16.1 km time-trial performance of trained cyclists under laboratory conditions with functional increases in oxygen uptake.