Bertucci William M, Betik Andrew C, Duc Sebastien, Grappe Frederic
Laboratoire d'Ingénierie et Sciences des Matériaux (EA 4695), UFR STAPS, Université de Reims-Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France.
J Appl Biomech. 2012 Dec;28(6):636-44. doi: 10.1123/jab.28.6.636. Epub 2012 May 8.
This study was designed to examine the biomechanical and physiological responses between cycling on the Axiom stationary ergometer (Axiom, Elite, Fontaniva, Italy) vs. field conditions for both uphill and level ground cycling. Nine cyclists performed cycling bouts in the laboratory on an Axiom stationary ergometer and on their personal road bikes in actual road cycling conditions in the field with three pedaling cadences during uphill and level cycling. Gross efficiency and cycling economy were lower (-10%) for the Axiom stationary ergometer compared with the field. The preferred pedaling cadence was higher for the Axiom stationary ergometer conditions compared with the field conditions only for uphill cycling. Our data suggests that simulated cycling using the Axiom stationary ergometer differs from actual cycling in the field. These results should be taken into account notably for improving the precision of the model of cycling performance, and when it is necessary to compare two cycling test conditions (field/laboratory, using different ergometers).
本研究旨在考察在Axiom固定测力计（Axiom，Elite，Fontaniva，意大利）上骑行与在野外条件下进行上坡和平地骑行时的生物力学和生理反应。九名自行车运动员在实验室的Axiom固定测力计上以及在野外实际道路骑行条件下使用他们的个人公路自行车进行骑行，在上坡和平地骑行时采用三种踩踏节奏。与野外相比，Axiom固定测力计的总效率和骑行经济性较低（-10%）。仅在上坡骑行时，Axiom固定测力计条件下的首选踩踏节奏高于野外条件。我们的数据表明，使用Axiom固定测力计进行的模拟骑行与野外实际骑行不同。在提高骑行性能模型的精度时，以及在需要比较两种骑行测试条件（野外/实验室，使用不同测力计）时，尤其应考虑这些结果。
