Validity and reliability of the look Keo power pedal system for measuring power output during incremental and repeated sprint cycling.

UNLABELLED: Power meters have traditionally been integrated into the crank set, but several manufacturers have designed new systems located elsewhere on the bike, such as inside the pedals. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Keo power pedals during several laboratory cycling tasks. METHODS: Ten active male participants (mean ± SD age 34.0 ± 10.6 y, height 1.77 ± 0.04 m, body mass 76.5 ± 10.7 kg) familiar with laboratory cycling protocols completed this study. Each participant was required to complete 2 laboratory cycling trials on an SRM ergometer (SRM, Germany) that was also fitted with the Keo power pedals (Look, France). The trials consisted of an incremental test to exhaustion followed by 10 min rest and then three 10-s sprint tests separated by 3 min of cycling at 100 W. RESULTS: Over power ranges of 75 to 1147 W, the Keo power-pedal system produced typical error values of 0.40, 0.21, and 0.21 for the incremental, sprint, and combined trials, respectively, compared with the SRM. Mean differences of 21.0 and 18.6 W were observed between trials 1 and 2 with the Keo system in the incremental and combined protocols, respectively. In contrast, the SRM produced differences of 1.3 and 0.6 W for the same protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The power data from the Keo power pedals should be treated with some caution given the presence of mean differences between them and the SRM. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by poorer reliability than that of the SRM power meter.

The effect of carbohydrate and marine peptide hydrolysate co-ingestion on endurance exercise metabolism and performance.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of introducing a fish protein hydrolysate (PEP) concurrently with carbohydrate (CHO) and whey protein (PRO) on endurance exercise metabolism and performance. METHODS: In a randomised, double blind crossover design, 12 male volunteers completed an initial familiarisation followed by three experimental trials. The trials consisted of a 90 min cycle task corresponding to 50% of predetermined maximum power output, followed by a 5 km time trial (TT). At 15 min intervals during the 90 min cycle task, participants consumed 180 ml of CHO (67 g(.)hr(-1) of maltodextrin), CHO-PRO (53.1 g(.)hr of CHO, 13.6 g(.)hr(-1) of whey protein) or CHO-PRO-PEP (53.1 g(.)hr(-1) of CHO, 11 g(.)hr(-1) of whey protein and 2.4 g(.)hr(-1)of hydrolyzed marine peptides). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: During the 90 min cycle task, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) in the CHO-PRO condition was significantly higher than CHO (p < 0.001) and CHO-PRO-PEP (p < 0.001). Additionally, mean heart rate for the CHO condition was significantly lower than that for CHO-PRO (p = 0.021). Time-to-complete the 5 km TT was not significantly different between conditions (m ± SD: 456 ± 16, 456 ± 18 and 455 ± 21 sec for CHO, CHO-PRO and CHO-PRO-PEP respectively, p = 0.98). Although the addition of hydrolyzed marine peptides appeared to influence metabolism during endurance exercise in the current study, it did not provide an ergogenic benefit as assessed by 5 km TT performance.