A Comparison of Anaerobic Power Tests using Cycle Ergometry and Nonmotorized Treadmill Ergometry at Optimized Loads.

The purpose of this study was to compare performance markers derived from a 30-second maximal bout on a cycle ergometer (CE) and non-motorized treadmill (NMT) under optimized loads. Recreationally active participants (n = 40) volunteered for the study. Force-velocity tests on the CE and NMT were used to determine optimal resistance for peak power (PP) production. The remaining visits were randomized and counterbalanced, with a single 30-second maximal test on CE or NMT to assess PP, mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), over the course of the 30-second test, and maximum heart rate (HRmax) and blood lactate (BLa-) taken 1-minute post. Results were that PP and MP were higher (P<0.05) on CE compared to NMT for both sexes. FI did not differ among males (P=0.201) whereas females showed higher FI (P=0.002) on the CE. HRmax and BLa- were higher (P<0.05) after NMT for both sexes. There was no difference for optimal braking force on NMT between males (16.65±4.49%BW) and females (14.30±3.10%BW) (P=0.061). CE optimal torque factor was higher for males (0.78±0.16 Nm/kg) compared to females (0.62±0.14 Nm/kg) (P=0.001). Overall, CE produced higher power output using optimized loads in recreationally active males and females, while NMT test resulted in a higher HRmax and BLa- concentration. These tests for anaerobic power, when performed with optimized loads, produced different results for several variables, therefore these modalities should not be considered interchangeable. Practitioners should consider which modality best mimics the activities of the person being tested when selecting a protocol.

Carbohydrate Rinse Fails to Enhance Cycling Performance or Alter Metabolic and Autonomic Recovery in Recreational Cyclists.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of carbohydrate (CHO) mouth rinsing on autonomic and metabolic recovery as well as cycling performance. Ten male recreational cyclists (age = 30 ± 6 years, VO2peak = 54.5 ± 8.1 mL·kg-1·min-1) completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover designed study. A CHO or a placebo (PLA) rinse was administered every 12.5% of a work to completion trial (75%Wmax). Heart rate variability (lnRMSSD), the respiratory exchange ratio, and plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, insulin, glucose, free fatty acids (FFA), and lactate were measured pre- and post-exercise. The CHO rinse did not improve time to completion of the test trial (CHO: 4108 ± 307 s, PLA: 4176 ± 374 s, p = 0.545). Further, the CHO rinse did not impact autonomic recovery, as measured by lnRMSSD (p = 0.787) and epinephrine (p = 0.132). Metabolic biomarkers were also unaffected by the CHO rinse, with no differences observed in responses of FFA (p = 0.064), lactate (p = 0.302), glucose (p = 0.113) or insulin (p = 0.408). Therefore, the CHO mouth rinse does not reduce the acute sympathetic response following strenuous exercise and does not result in improvements in cycling time to completion.

An investigation of the accuracy and reliability of body composition assessed with a handheld electrical impedance myography device.

The purpose of this study was to compare the body fat per cent (BF%) assessed with a unique handheld electrical impedance myography (EIM) device, along with other popular methods, to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants included 33 males (aged 24.3 ± 4.6 years) and 38 females (aged 25.3 ± 8.9 years) who completed 2 visits separated by 24-72 h. The assessments included DXA, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), skinfold measures (SKF), and three separate EIM measurements. No significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) were found between all EIM assessments when compared against DXA for both males and females for each visit. All methods showed no significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) between days within themselves. Across both days, the standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the EIM measurements ranged from 2.66% to 3.15%, the SEE for BIA was 2.80 and 2.85, and for SKF was 2.90 and 2.82. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from ±5.34% to ±6.38% for EIM measurements and were highest for SKF (±7.42% and ±7.47%). The total error for both days was largest for SKF (5.20% and 5.35%) and lowest for the EIM measurements (2.48-3.24%). This investigation supports use of a handheld EIM device as an accurate and reliable method of estimating BF% compared to DXA in young, apparently healthy individuals with BF% in the range of 10-22% for males and 20-32% in females and suggests this EIM device be considered a viable alternative to other established field measurements in this population.