Reproducibility of the Rotor 2INpower Crankset for Monitoring Cycling Power Output: A Comprehensive Analysis in Different Real-Context Situations

Relative pedaling forces are low during cycling

We quantified and compared the mechanical force demands relative to the maximum dynamic force (MDF) of 11 cyclists when pedaling at different intensities (ventilatory threshold, maximum lactate steady state, respiratory compensation point, and maximal aerobic power), cadences (free, 40, 60 and 80 rpm), and all-out resisted sprints. Relative force demands (expressed as %MDF) progressively increased with higher intensities (p < 0.001) and lower cadences (p < 0.001). Notwithstanding, relative force demands were low (<54 % MDF) for all conditions, even during the so-called 'torque training'. These results might be useful when programming on-bike resistance training to improve torque production capacity.

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method

BACKGROUND

Although the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.

OBJECTIVE

This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.

METHODS

Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.

CONCLUSION

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.

Is the Record Power Profile Repeatable? A Practical Analysis and Interpretation in Professional Cyclists

ABSTRACT

Muriel, X, Hernández-Belmonte, A, Mateo-March, M, Valenzuela, PL, Zabala, M, Barranco-Gil, D, Lucia, A, and Pallares, JG. Is the record power profile repeatable? A practical analysis and interpretation in professional cyclists. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-This study assessed the repeatability of the Record Power Profile (RPP, i.e., the highest power output that a cyclist can attain for different effort durations under field-based conditions). We registered the RPP of 12 professional cyclists (age 32 ± 5 years) for efforts lasting between 30 seconds and 60 minutes during 3 periods of a season, each of 23-day duration: preparation (including training data only), specific (training and competition data), and competition (competition data only) periods. Repeatability was assessed using the highest 2 (RPP 2 ), 3 (RPP 3 ), and 5 (RPP 5 ) values of mean maximum power obtained by the cyclists for each effort duration in each of the 3 periods. Smaller standard errors of measurement ( SEM ) were found as the competitive period approached, especially for short-duration efforts (i.e., 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 5 minutes, where SEM ranged from 4.3 to 12.5%, 4.1-8.5%, and 2.6-7.0% in the preparation, specific, and competition periods, respectively). However, similar SEM values were found in the 3 periods for RPP 2 , RPP 3 , or RPP 5. In conclusion, the RPP appears as a repeatable parameter for monitoring field-based performance within the different phases of the season in professional cyclists.

Strength and Athletic Adaptations Produced by 4 Programming Models: A Velocity-Based Intervention Using a Real-Context Routine

PURPOSE

To compare the strength and athletic adaptations induced by 4 programming models.

METHODS

Fifty-two men were allocated into 1 of the following models: linear programming (intensity increased while intraset volume decreased), undulating programming (intensity and intraset volume were varied in each session or set of sessions), reverse programming (intensity decreased while intraset volume increased), or constant programming (intensity and intraset volume kept constant throughout the training plan). All groups completed a 10-week resistance-training program made up of the free-weight bench press, squat, deadlift, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The 4 models used the same frequency (2 sessions per week), number of sets (3 per exercise), interset recoveries (4 min), and average intensity throughout the intervention (77.5%). The velocity-based method was used to accurately adjust the planned intensity for each model.

RESULTS

The 4 programming models exhibited significant pre-post changes in most strength variables analyzed. When considering the effect sizes for the 5 exercises trained, we observed that the undulating programming (mean effect size = 0.88-2.92) and constant programming (mean effect size = 0.61-1.65) models induced the highest and lowest strength enhancements, respectively. Moreover, the 4 programming models were found to be effective to improve performance during shorter (jump and sprint tests) and longer (upper- and lower-limb Wingate test) anaerobic tasks, with no significant differences between them.

CONCLUSION

The linear, undulating, reverse, and constant programming models are similarly effective to improve strength and athletic performance when they are implemented in a real-context routine.

Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review

A large number of power meters have become commercially available during the last decades to provide power output (PO) measurement. Some of these power meters were evaluated for validity in the literature. This study aimed to perform a review of the available literature on the validity of cycling power meters. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar have been explored with PRISMA methodology. A total of 74 studies have been extracted for the reviewing process. Validity is a general quality of the measurement determined by the assessment of different metrological properties: Accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness. Accuracy was most often studied from the metrological property (74 studies). Reproducibility was the second most studied (40 studies) property. Finally, repeatability, sensitivity, and robustness were considerably less studied with only 7, 5, and 5 studies, respectively. The SRM power meter is the most used as a gold standard in the studies. Moreover, the number of participants was very different among them, from 0 (when using a calibration rig) to 56 participants. The PO tested was up to 1700 W, whereas the pedalling cadence ranged between 40 and 180 rpm, including submaximal and maximal exercises. Other exercise conditions were tested, such as torque, position, temperature, and vibrations. This review provides some caveats and recommendations when testing the validity of a cycling power meter, including all of the metrological properties (accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness) and some exercise conditions (PO range, sprint, pedalling cadence, torque, position, participant, temperature, vibration, and field test).

Effect of physical exercise cessation on strength, functional, metabolic and structural outcomes in older adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is not a doubt that tailored exercise is an effective non-pharmacological approach for preventing, mitigating and even reversing ageing-related alterations. However, older adults are likely to experience prolonged periods of inactivity and training cessation periods as a consequence of falls or hospitalisation. Although recent evidence supports that exercise could have a protective effect and help in recovering, there is to date a lack of consensus about what kind of physical exercise prescription and training duration would produce better outcomes after training cessation periods. The current study will determine the effects that available exercise prescriptions produced in older adults in preserving physical conditioning following inactivity periods.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in three databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to 1 February 2021. Only randomised controlled trials written in English or Spanish will be eligible. No year of publication restriction will be applied. Eligible studies will contain information on population (older adults over 60 years old), intervention (inactivity period, exercise programme their duration), comparator (treatment as usual or waiting list) and outcomes (strength, functional capacity, metabolic health and skeletal muscle structure). Two independent reviewers will (1) search, screen and select studies, (2) extract data about their main characteristics and (3) evaluate their methodological and reporting quality. When disagreements emerge, the reviewers will discuss to reach a consensus. We plan to conduct meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesise the effects under study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As systematic reviews use publicly available data, no formal ethical review and approval are needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021235092.