Advanced Search

Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 May;56(5) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 May;56(5):520-6

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUETHE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology

Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0022-4707

Online ISSN 1827-1928

 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 May;56(5):520-6

EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS 

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Influence of exercise type on metabolic cost and gross efficiency: elliptical trainer versus cycling trainer

Cédric MORIO 1, Mohand HADDOUM 1, Damien FOURNET 2, Nils GUEGUEN 1

1 Section of Movement Sciences, Department of Research and Development, Décathlon S.A., Villeneuve d’Ascq, France; 2 Section of Thermal Comfort Sciences, Department of Research and Development, Décathlon S.A., Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

BACKGROUND: Elliptical trainers are known as a good mean to develop physical fitness. However, the pedaling efficiency on an elliptical trainer has not been reported in the literature. The aim of the present study was to compare metabolic cost and gross efficiency for two different trainers — the elliptical trainer (ET) and the cycling trainer (CT).
METHODS: Fourteen participants were tested on ET and CT during two exercise sessions. Participants pedaled at 9 different power outputs for 3 minutes each. Oxygen consumption (VO2) and heart rate (HR) were recorded. Gross efficiency (GE) was calculated during the last 30s of each 3min period. Maximal aerobic power (MAP) was estimated for each participant for each condition.
RESULTS: MAP was found to be significantly greater in CT (237±88W) compared to ET (151±51 W). Significant positive correlations were found between power output and VO2 in both CT (r=0.93) and ET conditions (r=0.97). Regarding the inter-individual variability in MAP, GE was significantly correlated to the relative power output (%MAP) (r=0.75 in CT and r=0.69 in ET).
CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the present study was to investigate metabolic demand of different exercise type using %MAP in each condition. The results confirmed that metabolic cost of ET was greater than CT at similar %MAP. Gross efficiency was lowered in ET condition compared to CT. This could be explained through the additional use of arms and the standing position during ET.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page