PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Andrew Subudhi

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Subudhi.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Torso stabilization reduces the metabolic cost of producing cycling power.

Many researchers have used cycling exercise to evaluate muscle metabolism. Inherent in such studies is an assumption that changes in whole-body respiration are due solely to respiration at the working muscle. Some researchers, however, have speculated that the metabolic cost of torso stabilization may contribute to the metabolic cost of cycling. Therefore, our primary purpose was to determine whether a torso stabilization device would reduce the metabolic cost of producing cycling power. Our secondary purpose was to determine the validity of the ergometer used in this study. Nine male cyclists cycled on a Velotron cycle ergometer at mechanical power outputs intended to elicit 50, 75, and 100% of their ventilatory threshold at 40, 60, and 80 rpm, with and without torso stabilization. Power was controlled by the Velotron in iso-power mode and measured with an SRM powermeter. We determined metabolic cost by indirect calorimetery and recorded power output. Torso stabilization significantly reduced metabolic cost of producing submaximal power (1%), and reduction tended to be greatest at the lower pedaling rates where pedaling force was greatest (1.6% at 40 rpm, 1.2% at 60 rpm, 0.2% at 80 rpm). Power, measured with the SRM powermeter, was strongly correlated with that specified to the Velotron ergometer control unit (R(2) > 0.99). We conclude that muscular contractions associated with torso stabilization elicit significant metabolic costs, which tend to be greatest at low pedaling rates. Researchers who intend to make precise inferences regarding metabolism in the working muscles of the legs may wish to provide torso stabilization as a means of reducing variability, particularly when comparing metabolic data across a wide range of pedaling rates.

Adult↗

Influence of testing protocol on ventilatory thresholds and cycling performance.

PURPOSE: To compare the ventilatory response of two incremental exercise tests and determine their predictive validity on 40-km cycle time trial (40K) mean power output (40Kavgwatts). METHODS: Fifteen male cyclists performed two incremental exercise tests (T50x3:100 W +50 W x 3(-1) min, T25x1:20 W + 25 W x min(-1)) and a 40K over an 8-d period. Key variable was power at ventilatory threshold (VT). For VT determination during each test we used: VE/VO2 method, first clear breakpoint on the VE/VCO2 plot, V-slope method, RER = 1, and RER = 0.95. RESULTS: VO2max during T50x3 and T25x1 was not different (66.6 vs 67.6 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)), although T25x1 peak power output (MaxT25x1; 402 W) was significantly higher than MaxT50x3 (363 W). T50x3 and T25x1 VT power outputs indicated that the power output at T25x1:RER = 1 and T25x1:RER = 0.95 were significantly higher compared with T50x3 (324 vs 304 W and 282 vs 264 W, respectively). Regression analyses between T50x3 variables and 40Kavgwatts were significant for T50x3:V-slope (R2 = 0.37; SEE 20.2 W), T50x3:VE/VO2 (R2 = 0.64; SEE 15.3 W), T50x3:RER = 0.95 (R2 = 0.42; SEE 19.4 W), T50x3:RER = 1 (R2 = 0.45; SEE 18.8 W), and MaxT50x3 (R2 = 0.51; SEE 17.8 W). Regression analyses between T25x1 variables and 40Kavgwatts were significant for T25x1:V-slope (R2 = 0.63; SEE 15.4 W), T25x1:VE/VO2 (R2 = 0.64; SEE 15.2 W), T25x1:RER = 0.95 (R2 = 0.53; SEE 17.4 W), T25x1:RER = 1 (R2 = 0.57; SEE 16.7 W), and MaxT25x1 (R2 = 0.65; SEE 15.0 W). There was no significant difference between 40Kavgwatts (282 W) and power outputs at T50x3:VE/VO2 (277 W), T50x3:V-slope (289 W), T25x1:VE/VO2 (276 W), and T25x1:RER = 0.95 (282 W). CONCLUSION: Generally, T25x1 based VT variables were superior to T50x3 variables regarding the prediction of 40Kavgwatts. We conclude that the VE/VO2 method is protocol independent and a valid 40Kavgwatts predictor.

Adult↗