Purpose: To determine the prototype pedal’s effect on efficiency and power output when compared to a traditional pedal.
Methods: Forty cyclists, aged 37.03 years, completed a 15-minute efficiency ride and 30 second Wingate power test on the prototype pedal and traditional bicycle pedal. Efficiency was calculated from a 15-minute ride at a set workload of 150W for females and 175W for males. The subjects rode at a cadence of their choice that represented their training speed. Heart rates were continually monitored during the ride and exercise post oxygen consumption (EPOC) was measured during the 10 minutes of recovery. Energy expenditure was calculated using the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and applying set caloric values for each R-value.
The Wingate power test was conducted on the Velotron bicycle using a PC with version 1.0 Wingate Software. The Velotron is a dynamometer calibrated and by design does not require recalibration. The resistance load was set at 7.5% of the subjects’ mass in kilograms. The subjects were given 10 seconds to increase the pace to their maximal RPM before the resistance was applied. After 10 seconds, the specific resistance was immediately loaded onto the bicycle. Subjects worked maximally at this load for 30 seconds. Lactate levels were also measured after the ride.
Results: There were no significant efficiency differences found for the 40 cyclists. The only significant finding was for ventilation (p= .012) , which favored the traditional pedal. The gender breakdown showed that the females performed better on the traditional pedal for net (p= .046) and gross (p= .038) efficiency. The only significant difference for the males was ventilation rate ( p= .031) but rate of perceived exertion was lower on the prototype (p=.043).
When analyzing the Wingate data for all 40 subjects, there were no significant differences found except for RPE (p=.045). Females were significantly better on the traditional pedal with anaerobic capacity (p=.034) and Mean RPM (p=.027).
Conclusions: No significant efficiency or power differences were found between the two pedals. 20 people performed better on the traditional and 20 performed better on the prototype.