Published in:
01-12-2002 | Correspondence
Tests of Cycling Performance
Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 14/2002
Login to get accessExcerpt
Three of the 21 references in the Paton and Hopkins[1] article are for research conducted in our laboratory. We therefore thank Carl Paton and Will Hopkins for their interest in our work. One of our referenced articles[2] reported on the dynamic calibration of 35 friction-braked (Monark), five research-grade air-braked (Repco) and five electromagnetically braked (two Siemens, one Elema-Schonander, one Ergoline and one Warren E. Collins) cycle ergometers. However, Paton and Hopkins[1] made some incorrect comments/inferences on the electromagnetically braked ergometers in section 2.2 of their article and, in the interest of scientific accuracy, we wish to set the record straight:-
Second sentence, second paragraph: they reported that we calibrated the ergometers ‘for an unspecified time’ whereas our methods section states clearly that: after a 2-minute warm-up each machine was loaded from 0 to 300W in 25W increments that were of 2 minutes’ duration.
-
Third sentence, second paragraph: we ‘did not associate specific errors with specific models’ because to do so would be rash considering that the sample size for three of the models was one. As stated in our introduction, these were all the ergometers of this type that we could access in the Adelaide area.
-
Fourth sentence, second paragraph: ‘. . . they also chose pedalling speeds of 40 and 60 rev • min-1, which are unrealistic for competitive cyclists . . .’ The maximal pedal cadences for these ergometers were 80 rev • min-1, but in Paton and Hopkins’ defence, we did not state this in our paper.[2] Nevertheless, these ergometers were, therefore, incapable of attaining the cadences required when testing competitive cyclists. This is why the physiological significance section of our methods used the W170 (power output at a heart rate of 170 beats/min) submaximal work test for mechanically and electromagnetically braked ergometers, whereas the 60-second all-out test was referred to for the air-braked ergometer, which is the preferred instrument in Australia for anaerobic tests for cyclists.
-
Fourth sentence, second paragraph continued ‘ . . . they did not investigate the accuracy of the ergometers in constant-power mode at different pedalling speeds.’ Our table IV clearly demonstrates that we compared constant power outputs at 40 and 60 rev • min-1. These cadences were of interest because they were used by the five hospitals when administering submaximal work tests.