Key result
The Lode Excalibur Sport Ergometer yielded significantly higher time-to-exhaustion (21 min 12 s vs 19 min 9 s) and peak power output (335 W vs 295 W) compared to the Computrainer device (p < 0.001).
Why the study?
Is the Lode Excalibur Sport ergometer reliable and do its results directly apply to the Computrainer device in athletes?
RCT (n=26)
Randomized, counterbalance assignment
Is the Lode Excalibur Sport ergometer reliable and do its results directly apply to the Computrainer device in athletes?
Results obtained from laboratory testing on the Lode ergometer may not be directly transferable to the Computrainer training device due to significant differences in power output and time-to-exhaustion.
Lode ergometer reliable internally but yields higher values than Computrainer; leaves open direct transfer of lab thresholds without device-specific adjustment.
New technology allows cyclists to train via power output (PO) in addition to heart rate (HR). For those athletes undertaking seasonal laboratory testing (e.g., Vo(2), lactate threshold), it is imperative that athletes be able to directly apply this information to their training device. We examined the reliability of a standardized laboratory ergometer (Lode Excalibur Sport) and its applicability to an electromagnetically braked ergometer (Computrainer) in 2 phases. Phase I (n = 12) examined the reliability of the Lode. Phase II (n = 14) compared the Lode to the Computrainer using a randomized, counterbalance assignment. Following warm-up, each trial started at 100 W, progressing 50 W every 3 minutes to exhaustion. Outcomes were time-to-exhaustion (TTE), peak PO (W) (PO(peak)), peak HR (HR(peak)), and ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation (RCP) thresholds. We used a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey post hoc analysis, regression analysis, Bland-Altman plots, and coefficient of variation (CV) analysis for each variable. During phase I, we found no significant difference for any variable, minimal dispersion of Vo(2) during Bland-Altman analysis, and a low CV at each test stage (</= 5%). During phase II, significant differences and higher CV for most parameters (all data; p < 0.001) were observed for Lode versus Computrainer: TTE (21 minutes, 12 seconds +/- 3 minutes, 12 seconds vs. 19 minutes, 9 seconds +/- 2 minutes, 36 seconds; CV = 16%), PO(peak) (335 +/- 57.8 W vs. 295 +/- 47.1 W, CV = 17%), as well as PO at VT (CV = 51%) and RCP (CV = 24%; p < 0.01). We conclude that coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when directly transferring results obtained from laboratory testing to the Computrainer training device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Earnest et al. (2005) conducted an RCT in Cyclists (n=26). Lode Excalibur Sport Ergometer vs. Computrainer electromagnetically braked cycling training device was evaluated on Time-to-exhaustion (TTE) and peak power output (PO(peak)) (p=< 0.001). The Lode Excalibur Sport Ergometer yielded significantly higher time-to-exhaustion (21 min 12 s vs 19 min 9 s) and peak power output (335 W vs 295 W) compared to the Computrainer device (p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: