Vo<sub>2</sub>requirement at different displayed power outputs on five cycle ergometer models: a preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The validity of five brands of cycle ergometers was evaluated by the comparison of the Vo(2) requirements at different displayed power. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five physically active men performed a continuous incremental exercise test on five ergometers (Ergomeca, Lifecycle, Monark, Polar S710 and CompuTrainer). The latter was also compared with a standard dynamometer in order to associate Vo(2) values with the real power. Every test started with a 5-min warm-up on the same cycle ergometer (Ergomeca) at 100 W to make sure that the Vo(2) differences do not come from Vo(2) measurement error. Only last minute steady-state Vo(2) values of each 2-min stage were used for the Vo(2)-watt curve. Large differences (5- 10 ml kg(-1) min(-1)) at the same displayed power indicate inaccuracy of displayed power output (PO). Using corrected power values from the dynamometer revealed that for the same Vo(2) the CompuTrainer underestimates PO by approximately 30 W between 100 and 300 W, whereas the Lifecycle overestimate it by 3-53 W from 100 to 300 W. The Monark and Polar S710 underestimate PO by 15 W and the Ergomeca by approximately 5 W. CONCLUSION: Inaccuracies between -10% and 18% in displayed PO of various cycle ergometers question their interchangeability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".