Reliability of an air-braked ergometer to record peak power during a maximal cycling test.
OBJECTIVE
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.
Balmer
J
J
Department of Sport Science, Canterbury Christ Church University College, United Kingdom. j.balmer@cant.ac.uk
Davison
R C
RC
Bird
S R
SR
D001642:Bicycling; D004867:Equipment Design; D005080:Exercise Test / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015203:Reproducibility of Results