Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
Online ISSN 1827-1928
EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS
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.