Int J Sports Med 2011; 32(2): 117-121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1268490
Training & Testing

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Validation of a New Cycle Ergometer

M. F. Glaner1 , R. A. S. Silva1
  • 1UNIEURO University Center, Physical Education, Brasília, Brazil
Further Information

Publication History

accepted after revision October 24, 2010

Publication Date:
16 December 2010 (online)

Preview

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the concurrent validity of the ICBE compared to the Monark® cycle ergometer by indirect dynamic calibration. 42 men were randomly submitted to 2 maximal stress tests with increments of 50 W at 2-min intervals. One test was performed on the Monark® bicycle (834/E) and the other on the ICBE. Cardiovascular, perceived exertion and hemodynamic responses were compared between the 2 bicycles. No differences (p>0.05) were observed in resting heart rate (HR), maximum HR, peak oxygen uptake (VO2P L·min−1 and VO2PmL·kg−1·min−1), and number of stages completed. High correlations (r>0.85) were found between HR and VO2P. Residual analysis indicated strong agreement between the 2 cycle ergometers in terms of VO2P L·min−1 [−0.36–0.30] and VO2P mL·kg−1·min−1 [−4.98–4.46]. Residual dispersion (r=0.25 for both) showed that the mathematical differences in VO2P L·min−1 and VO2P mL·kg−1·min−1 between cycle ergometers were independent. The correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (R2) between VO2P L·min−1 (r=0.90; R2=0.80) and VO2P mL·kg−1·min−1 (r=0.90; R2=0.81) obtained for the 2 cycle ergometers were high, whereas the standard error of the estimate was low (0.186 L·min−1 and 2.56 mL·kg−1·min−1, respectively). The ICBE presents concurrent validity for use in submaximal and maximal cardiopulmonary tests.

References

Correspondence

Maria Fátima GlanerPhD 

Quadra 201

Lote 6 Bloco B – apt. 803

Águas Claras

71937-540 BrasÍlia

Brazil

Phone: + 55/61/3356 9000

Fax: + 55/61/3356 3010

Email: mfglaner@gmail.com