The relationship between total-body mass, fat-free mass and cycle ergometry power components during 20 seconds of maximal exercise
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the maximal exercise performance of 10 men during friction braked cycle ergometry of 20 s duration when resistive forces reflected total body mass (TBM) or fat free mass (FFM). Fat mass was calculated from the sum of skinfold thicknesses. Increases (P < 0.05) in peak power output (PPO) were found between TBM and FFM (1,015+/-165 W TBM vs 1,099+/-172 W FFM). Decreases (P < 0.05) were observed for the time taken to reach PPO (3.8+/-1.4 s TBM vs 2.9+/-1 s FFM). Pedal velocity increased (P < 0.05) during the FFM protocol (129.4+/-8.2 rpm TBM vs 136.3+/-8 rpm FFM). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also (P < 0.05) greater for FFM (18.4+/-1.6 TBM vs 19.8+/-0.4 FFM). No changes were found for Mean Power Output (MPO), fatigue index (FI) or Work Done (WD) between trials. These findings suggest that high intensity resistive force loading protocols may need to be reconsidered. Results from this study indicate that the active tissue component of body composition needs consideration in resistive force selection when ascertaining maximal cycle ergometer power profiles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RPE values obtained in this manner may underestimate exertion during the sprints; other studies where RPE has been obtained following a 20 second all out sprint have reported higher values of ~16-18.
“RPE values obtained in this manner may underestimate exertion during the sprints; indeed, other studies where RPE has been obtained following a 20 second all out sprint have reported higher values of ~16-18 (Baker et al. 2001;Gearhart et al. 2005).”
From Towards the minimal amount of exercise for improving metabolic health: beneficial effects of reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (2012) · cites this paper as Baker et al. 2001
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 80
- Authors
- Baker, J. S., Bailey, D. M., & Davies, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Glamorgan (GB)
- ORCID
- Bailey, D.M.
- Venue
- Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 1440-2440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964168967
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of science and medicine in sport (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Keywords
- total body mass, fat-free mass, cycle ergometry, peak power, body composition, skinfold thickness, rating of perceived exertion, fatigue index, work done, high-intensity exercise, resistance training
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Exercise Test, Football, Humans, Male, Running, Skinfold Thickness, Body Mass Index, Muscle, Skeletal, Cross-Over Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
