Validação de uma bicicleta ergométrica de ciclismo indoor

AUTOR(ES)
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

2008

RESUMO

The adaptation of load system an bicycle ergometer for indoor cycling (BEIC) allowed its classification as an cycle ergometer, however, its validation must be tested. Because of this it was decided to test the validation of BEIC and the contested Monark. Forty and two cyclists of a regional level (Mean-DP): age 33,7 (8,4) years; stature 175,3 (6,3) cm; body mass, 73,2 (6,2) kg; fat 15,7 (3,8) %; time of practice 10,4(8,15) years; week training 331,6 (159,8) km; year training 10.309 (7.792) km, they were submitted, randomly, at two tests of a maximum effort, at the Monark cycle ergometers (834-E) and BEIC, using the Balke protocol. It was compared the using of oxigen and the production of carbon dioxide, absolute and relative, maximum and by stage, ventilation, breathing quotient, fractions of O2 e CO2, it was noticed an effort and obtained the heart beating in both tests. It was used a descriptive statisc and the dependent "t" test (p0,05), correlated to Pearson, residual scores (BLAND; ALTMAN, 1986), estimate pattern mistake and its cofficient of determination (R2). The results show that it has a high correlation of VO2MAX L/min-1 and VO2MAX ml/kg/min-1 between the Monark and BEIC (r=0,896 e r=0,899), and an absence of differences when compared (p=0,585 e p=0,573). That was not differences at the numbers stages to reach the VO2MAX L/min-1 (p=0,782). The residual escores of VO2MAX shown an equivalence between the Monark and the BEIC. A EPE shown that the mistakes between the cycles are acceptable. The R2 tolerates 80% of the predictions of EPE. All the variables shown a normal kinetic. There were random differences (p<0,05) at the stages, however, to the exercises prescriptions, these differences are not important. All indicates that the BEIC imposed load similarly to the criterion, because it was shown at the metabolic, perceptuals and hemodynamics. To conclude, the BEIC shown a validation as good as Monark. The adaptation of a load system to the indoor cycling bicycle ergometer (ICBE) it allowed her classification as a cycle ergometer. However, so that it is used in cardiopulmonary test, ICBE should have her tested validity. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test the concurrent validity of ICBE in relation to Monark (pattern gold). Forty two cyclists of regional level [Mean (SD): age, 33,7(8,4)years; stature, 175,3(6,3)cm; body mass, 73,2(6,2)kg; fat, 15,7(3,8)%; time of practice, 10,4(8,15)years; weekly volume of training, 331,6(159,8)km; annual volume of training, 10.309 (7.792)km]. They were submitted to two tests of maximum effort, in a random way, in the cycle ergometers Monark (model: 834/E) and BECI, through the protocol of Balke, with increments of 50W to each 2 min. In order to evaluate the metabolic overload imposed the volunteers by the two cycle ergometers, the results of the consumption of oxygen and production of carbon dioxide, absolute and relative, maximum and for stages were compared (VO2MAX L/min-1, VO2MAX ml/kg/min-1, VCO2MAX L/min-1, VCO2MAX ml/kg/min-1 and VO2sta), as well as to ventilation (VE), the breathing quotient (QR), the exhaled fractions of O2 and CO2 (FeO2, FeCO2), the subjective perception of effort (PSE) and the heart frequency (FC) obtained in the two tests. The descriptive statistics was used and test dependent "t" (p 0,05), coefficient of correlation of Pearson, analysis of the residual scores of Bland and Altman, the standard mistake of estimate (EPE) and the determination coefficient (R2). The results demonstrate that there were high correlation of VO2MAX L/min-1 and VO2MAX ml/kg/min-1 among the tests with Monark and BECI (r = 0,896 and r = 0,899) and, there were not differences when compared (p = 0,585 and p = 0,573). Among the two tests, there also was not significance in the number of stages for VO2MAX L/min-1 reach (p = 0,782), obtained on average in the 9o stage (450 W). The residual scores for VO2MAX L/min-1 and VO2MAX ml/kg/min-1 demonstrated equivalence of results between Monark and BECI. EPE demonstrated that error among the cycles are acceptable (VO2MAX L/min-1=186 ml; VO2MAX ml/kg/min-1= 2,56 ml/kg/min-1). While R2 supports that the predictions of EPE presents consistence in the magnitude of 80%. All the variables indicated a kinetics normal physiologic and strong similarity between Monark and BECI. They showed differences (p 0,05) random in the stages, however, of the practical point of view these differences are not important. BECI demonstrated that the load imposition was equivalent to the criterion, in function of the similarity of the metabolic, perceptuals and hemodynamics answers. Like this, BECI presented concurrent validity in relation to Monark.

ASSUNTO(S)

validity ergometry validade teste de esforço ergometria cycling educacao fisica ciclismo

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados