Estimating Energy Expenditure using Individualized, Power-Specific Gross Efficiencies.

Our purpose was to determine if using an individual's power-specific gross efficiency improves the accuracy of estimating energy expenditure from cycling power. 30 subjects performed a graded cycling test to develop 4 gross efficiencies: individual power-specific gross efficiencies, a group mean power-specific gross efficiency, individual fixed gross efficiencies, and a group mean fixed gross efficiency. Energy expenditure was estimated from power using these different gross efficiencies and compared to measured energy expenditure during moderate- and hard-intensity constant-power and 2 variable-power cycling bouts. Estimated energy expenditures using individual or group mean power-specific gross efficiencies were not different from measured energy expenditure across all cycling bouts (p>0.05). To examine the intra-individual variability of the estimates, absolute difference scores (absolute value of estimated minus measured energy expenditure) were compared, where values closer to zero represent more accurate individual estimates. The absolute difference score using individual power-specific gross efficiencies was significantly lower compared to the other gross efficiencies across all cycling bouts (p<0.01). Significant and strong correlations (r≥0.97, p<0.001) were found across all cycling bouts between estimated and measured energy expenditures using individual power-specific gross efficiencies. In conclusion, using an individual's power-specific gross efficiency significantly improves their energy expenditure estimate across different power outputs.

Exercise efficiency of low power output cycling.

Exercise efficiency at low power outputs, energetically comparable to daily living activities, can be influenced by homeostatic perturbations (e.g., weight gain/loss). However, an appropriate efficiency calculation for low power outputs used in these studies has not been determined. Fifteen active subjects (seven females, eight males) performed 14, 5-min cycling trials: two types of seated rest (cranks vertical and horizontal), passive (motor-driven) cycling, no-chain cycling, no-load cycling, cycling at low (10, 20, 30, 40 W), and moderate (50, 60, 80, 100, 120 W) power outputs. Mean delta efficiency was 57% for low power outputs compared to 41.3% for moderate power outputs. Means for gross (3.6%) and net (5.7%) efficiencies were low at the lowest power output. At low power outputs, delta and work efficiency values exceeded theoretical values. In conclusion, at low power outputs, none of the common exercise efficiency calculations gave values comparable to theoretical muscle efficiency. However, gross efficiency and the slope and intercept of the metabolic power vs mechanical power output regression provide insights that are still valuable when studying homeostatic perturbations.