| Title |
Tests of Cycling Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00007256-200131070-00004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carl D. Paton, Will G. Hopkins |
| Abstract |
Performance tests are an integral component of assessment for competitive cyclists in practical and research settings. Cycle ergometry is the basis of most of these tests. Most cycle ergometers are stationary devices that measure power while a cyclist pedals against sliding friction (e.g. Monark), electromagnetic braking (e.g. Lode), or air resistance (e.g. Kingcycle). Mobile ergometers (e.g. SRM cranks) allow measurement of power through the drive train of the cyclist's own bike in real or simulated competitions on the road, in a velodrome or in the laboratory. The manufacturers' calibration of all ergometers is questionable; dynamic recalibration with a special rig is therefore desirable for comparison of cyclists tested on different ergometers. For monitoring changes in performance of a cyclist, an ergometer should introduce negligible random error (variation) in its measurements; in this respect, SRM cranks appear to be the best ergometer, but more comparison studies of ergometers are needed. Random error in the cyclist's performance should also be minimised by choice of an appropriate type of test. Tests based on physiological measures (e.g. maximum oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold) and tests requiring self-selection of pace (e.g. constant-duration and constant-distance tests) usually produce random error of at least approximately 2 to 3% in the measure of power output. Random error as low as approximately 1% is possible for measures of power in 'all-out' sprints, incremental tests, constant-power tests to exhaustion and probably also time trials in an indoor velodrome. Measures with such low error might be suitable for tracking the small changes in competitive performance that matter to elite cyclists. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 1% |
| Unknown | 329 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 58 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 56 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 14% |
| Researcher | 24 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 83 | 24% |
| Unknown | 61 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 176 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 5% |
| Engineering | 14 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 38 | 11% |
| Unknown | 69 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2017.
All research outputs
#8,474,955
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,273
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,279
of 192,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#529
of 836 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 836 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.