These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The validity of power output recorded during exercise performance tests using a Kingcycle air-braked cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter.
    Author: Balmer J, Davison RC, Coleman DA, Bird SR.
    Journal: Int J Sports Med; 2000 Apr; 21(3):195-9. PubMed ID: 10834352.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]