Electromagnetically braked versus mechanically braked cycle ergometers: Effects of aerobic power and total physical workloads

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Ozkol, Mehmet Zeki^a

Affiliations: [a] Ege University School of Physical Education and Sports, Bornova, Izmir, Turkiye. Tel.: +90 232 342 57 14; Fax: +90 232 339 90 00; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences in physiological performance at constant submaximal load and aerobic power levels of electromagnetically and mechanically braked cycle ergometers. METHOD: Nineteen trained male athletes who specialize in cycling and triathlons participate in this study (age, 20.21 ± 3.50 years; body mass, 73.36 ± 13.19 kg; height, 178.73 ± 8.54 cm). A randomized cross-over study design was used to compare a mechanically braked Monark cycle ergometer (MCE) and an electromagnetically braked Lode Excalibur cycle ergometer (ECE). After the VO_{2max} test, total physical work capacity and work efficiency (GE) were analysed during 60% of VO_{2max} constant loading submaximal tests with MCE and ECE. A paired sample t-test was used to compare VO_{2max} and constant loading submaximal test data of the ergometers. RESULTS: Applying the ECE system resulted in a significantly higher VO_{2max} value (9.3%; p=0.004), similar respiratory exchange ratio value (1.8% lower; p=0.290), similar power output at exhaustion point (1% higher; p=0.620), significantly higher total energy expenditure at exhaustion point and mean cadence (Cad_{mean}) value (12%; p=0.025, 9.6%; p=0.000) respectively. In the constant loading submaximal tests, however, significant differences were found in mean power output (p=0.013), Cad_{mean} (p=0.000), and GE (p=0.000) values. CONCLUSION: Since the ECE system was associated with a higher VO_{2max} and allowed test performance at the expected VO_{2} consumption at constant submaximal loads, we recommend using the ECE for determination of aerobic power and total physical workloads.

Keywords: Lode, Monark, maximum oxygen consumption, resistance, testing device

DOI: 10.3233/IES-140536

Journal: Isokinetics and Exercise Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 165-173, 2014