{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031804733727810654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03476331360946745, 'mean_word_length': 4.28515625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Determination of aerobic work and power on a rope-braked cycle ergometer by direct measurement.

The purpose of this study was to compare the power and work outputs of a cycle ergometer using the manufacturer's guidelines, with calculations using direct flywheel velocity and brake torque. A further aim was to compare the values obtained with those supplied by the manufacturer. A group of 10 male participants were asked to pedal a Monark 824E ergometer at a constant cadence of 60 r/min for a period of 3 min against a resistive mass of 3 kg. The flywheel velocity was measured using a tachometer. The brake force was determined by measuring the tension in the rope on either side of the flywheel. The calculated mean power was 147.45 +/- 6.5 W compared with the Monark value of 183 +/- 3.7 W. The difference between the methods for power estimation was 18% and was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The mean work done by the participants during the 3 min period was found to be 26 460 +/- 1145 J compared with the Monark value of 33,067 +/- 648 J (p < 0.01). The Monark formulae currently used to determine the power and work done by a participant overestimates the actual values required to overcome the resistance. There findings have far-reaching implications in the physiological assessment of athletic, sedentary, and diseased populations.