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: Influence of cycle ergometer type and sex on assessment of 30-second anaerobic capacity and power.
    Author: Leicht AS, Sealey RM, Sinclair WH.
    Journal: Int J Sports Med; 2011 Sep; 32(9):688-92. PubMed ID: 21618158.
    Abstract:
    This study examined the influence of cycle ergometer type and sex on assessment of 30-s anaerobic capacity and power. 41 healthy adults performed a 30-s anaerobic cycle test using a mechanically- (ME) and air-braked (AE) ergometer in a randomised order, approximately 7 days apart. Peak heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion were similar between tests with peak HR greater for females compared to males (187.0 ± 9.1 vs. 180.8 ± 9.9 bpm, p<0.05). Peak power (1 100 ± 330 vs. 802 ± 225 W), mean power (793 ± 223 vs. 587 ± 156 W) and total work (23.8 ± 6.7 vs. 17.6 ± 4.7 kJ) were greater for AE compared to ME (p<0.001) and greater for males compared to females (p<0.001). The mean difference for anaerobic capacity and power between AE and ME were similar for males and females (37-41% vs. 33-35%, p>0.05). Peak lactate was greater for AE compared to ME (16.1 ± 3.4 vs. 14.8 ± 2.9 mmol·L (-1); p<0.05) and greater for males compared to females (16.2 ± 3.5 vs. 14.6 ± 2.7 mmol·L (-1); p<0.05). The current study demonstrated that anaerobic power and capacity were substantially greater when assessed using AE compared to the traditional ME with the difference between ergometer types unaffected by sex. Ergometer type should be considered when comparing anaerobic results across populations and/or studies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]