Search

Objectives: This study compared an 85-tooth versus the standard 62-tooth chainring for power outputs during a Wingate test using a Velotron electromagnetically-braked cycle ergometer., Design: All participants completed trials using both chainring sizes in a repeated-measures cross-over design., Methods: Resistance-trained male participants (n=20, 24.6±4.5years) performed two Wingate tests separated by at least 48h. Peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), peak cadence, mean cadence, and total work (TW) were recorded., Results: Peak power was not significantly different (p=0.10) between trials (62-tooth=1111±187W vs. 85-tooth=1188±103W). However, MP, mean cadence, and TW were significantly greater (p<0.01) for the 85-tooth trial (869±114W, 131±16rpm, and 26,063±3418J) compared to the 62-tooth test (673±136W, 102±24rpm, and 20,199±4066J). Fatigue index was reduced during the 85-tooth trial (49.9±9.1% vs. 61.6±8.8%; p<0.01). Agreement was poor with most ICCs≈0.19 and large SEMs., Conclusions: The two options for chainrings on Velotron cycle ergometers should not be interchangeably used with the Wingate test software; the 62-tooth ring is recommended for most applications. Individuals who can attain peak cadence >180rpm have less variability and tend to achieve higher power outputs on the 62-tooth ring. We suspect that the manufacturer's software limits peak cadence to 182rpm when using the 85-tooth chainring., (Copyright © 2017 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Investigations in the 1990s evaluated the influence of breathing assemblies on respiratory variables at rest and during exercise; however, research on new models of breathing assemblies is lacking. This study compared metabolic gas analysis data from a mouthpiece with a noseclip (MOUTH) and a face mask (MASK). Volunteers (7 males, 7 females; 25.1 ± 2.7 years) completed two maximal treadmill tests within 1 week, one MOUTH and one MASK, in random order. The difference in maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) between MOUTH (52.7 ± 11.3 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)) and MASK (52.2 ± 11.7 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)) was not significant (P = 0.53). Likewise, the mean MOUTH-MASK differences in minute ventilation (VE), fraction of expired oxygen (FEO2) and carbon dioxide (FECO2), respiration rate (RR), tidal volume (Vt), heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at maximal and submaximal intensities were not significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, there was no systematic bias in the error scores (r = -0.13, P = 0.66), and 12 of the 14 participants had a VO2max difference of ≤3 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1) between conditions. Finally, there was no clear participant preference for using the MOUTH or MASK. Selection of MOUTH or MASK will not affect the participant's gas exchange or breathing patterns.