A new valid and reliable windtrainer VO2max protocol.

AIM: Maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)) cycling protocols usually require expensive laboratory ergometers where the athlete is unaccustomed to the cycling position. Recently, we developed a VO(2max) speed-ramped protocol with an indoor cycling simulator (Cateye Windtrainer WT) allowing cyclists to use their own bicycles during the VO(2max) test. The aim of this study was to test the validity of the WT protocol by comparing it with a traditional (TD) resistance-ramped protocol using an electronically braked ergometer. In addition, the retest reliability of the WT protocol was also determined. METHODS: Twenty experienced cyclists randomly completed 6 VO(2max) protocols consisting of one familiarization trial and two tests on the WT and TD protocols. RESULTS: There were minimal differences in maximal oxygen uptake values between protocols (WT 64.1+/-7.1, TD 63.3+/-7.4 mL/kg/min). The variability in the difference of the means between the two protocols was 0.8 mL/kg/min (95% confidence interval CI: -0.26-2.02), the coefficient of variation (CV) was 2.8% (95%CI: 2.2-4.2%) and the interclass correlation was r=0.94 (P<0.01; 95%CI: 0.86-0.98). The intratest difference within the WT protocol was 1.5% (95%CI: -1.9-5%), CV=5.3% (95%CI: 4.1-8%) and the retest correlation was r=0.81 (P<0.01; 95%CI: 0.57-0.92). CONCLUSION: The WT speed-ramped protocol is a valid and reliable method to assess VO(2max).

A comparison of peak power in the shoulder press and shoulder throw.

The ability to generate peak power is central for performance in many sports. Currently two distinct resistance training methods are used to develop peak power, the heavy weight/slow velocity and light weight/fast velocity regimes. When using the light weight/fast velocity power training method it was proposed that peak power would be greater in a shoulder throw exercise compared with a normal shoulder press. Nine males performed three lifts in the shoulder press and shoulder throw at 30% and 40% of their one repetition maximum (1RM). These lifts were performed identically, except for the release of the bar in the throw condition. A potentiometer attached to the bar measured displacement and duration of the lifts. The time of bar release in the shoulder throw was determined with a pressure switch. ANOVA was used to examine statistically significant differences where the level of acceptance was set at p < 0.05. Peak power was found to be significantly greater in the shoulder throw at 30% of 1 RM condition [F, (1, 23) = 2.325 p < 0.051 and at 40% of 1 RM [F, (1, 23) = 2.905 p < 0.05] compared to values recorded for the respective shoulder presses. Peak power was also greater in the 30% of 1 RM shoulder throw (510 +/- 103W) than in the 40% of 1 RM shoulder press (471 +/- 96W). Peak power was produced significantly later in the shoulder throw versus the shoulder press. This differing power reflected a greater bar velocity of the shoulder throw at both assigned weights compared with the shoulder press.