At many institutions introductory exercise physiology courses are required for all kinesiology students. The laboratory portion of these courses usually involves development of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) connected with content presented in lecture. Due to scalability issues, the Kinesiology Department at California State University Monterey Bay cannot offer traditional laboratory experiences. Therefore, online and hybrid laboratory experiences were created to provide similar opportunities for students, address scalability issues, and enhance student engagement and learning. Creation of these carefully crafted laboratory experiences allowed instructors to (a) highlight and explain key foundational principles, (b) provide experiences involving practical application of material presented in lecture, and (c) present students with additional learning experiences while maintaining high learner expectations. The following article outlines the process used to create these virtual laboratory experiences for students in an undergraduate introductory exercise physiology course.
Search Results
Providing Virtual Laboratory Sessions in an Undergraduate Exercise Physiology Course
Ryan Charles Luke and Jaye K. Luke
Validity, Sensitivity, Reproducibility, and Robustness of the PowerTap, Stages, and Garmin Vector Power Meters in Comparison With the SRM Device
Anthony Bouillod, Julien Pinot, Georges Soto-Romero, William Bertucci, and Frederic Grappe
A large number of power meters have been produced on the market for nearly 20 y according to user requirements.
Purpose:
To determine the validity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and robustness of the PowerTap (PWT), Stages (STG), and Garmin Vector (VCT) power meters in comparison with the SRM device.
Methods:
A national-level male competitive cyclist completed 3 laboratory cycling tests: a submaximal incremental test, a submaximal 30-min continuous test, and a sprint test. Two additional tests were performed, the first on vibration exposures in the laboratory and the second in the field.
Results:
The VCT provided a significantly lower 5-s power output (PO) during the sprint test with a low gear ratio than the SRM did (–36.9%). The STG PO was significantly lower than the SRM PO in the heavy-exercise-intensity zone (zone 2, –5.1%) and the low part of the severe-intensity zone (zone 3, –4.9%). The VCT PO was significantly lower than the SRM PO only in zone 2 (–4.5%). The STG PO was significantly lower in standing position than in the seated position (–4.4%). The reproducibility of the PWT, STG, and VCT was similar to that of the SRM system. The STG and VCT PO were significantly decreased from a vibration frequency of 48 Hz and 52 Hz, respectively.
Conclusions:
The PWT, STG, and VCT systems appear to be reproducible, but the validity, sensitivity, and robustness of the STG and VCT systems should be treated with some caution according to the conditions of measurement.
Validity and Reproducibility of the Ergomo®Pro Power Meter Compared With the SRM and Powertap Power Meters
Sébastien Duc, Vincent Villerius, William Bertucci, and Frédéric Grappe
Purpose:
The Ergomo®Pro (EP) is a power meter that measures power output (PO) during outdoor and indoor cycling via 2 optoelectronic sensors located in the bottom bracket axis. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and the reproducibility of the EP compared with the SRM crank set and Powertap hub (PT).
Method:
The validity of the EP was tested in the laboratory during 8 submaximal incremental tests (PO: 100 to 400 W), eight 30-min submaximal constant-power tests (PO = 180 W), and 8 sprint tests (PO > 750 W) and in the field during 8 training sessions (time: 181 ± 73 min; PO: ~140 to 150 W). The reproducibility was assessed by calculating the coefficient of PO variation (CV) during the submaximal incremental and constant tests.
Results:
The EP provided a significantly higher PO than the SRM and PT during the submaximal incremental test: The mean PO differences were +6.3% ± 2.5% and +11.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. The difference was greater during field training sessions (+12.0% ± 5.7% and +16.5% ± 5.9%) but lower during sprint tests (+1.6% ± 2.5% and +3.2% ± 2.7%). The reproducibility of the EP is lower than those of the SRM and PT (CV = 4.1% ± 1.8%, 1.9% ± 0.4%, and 2.1% ± 0.8%, respectively).
Conclusions:
The EP power meter appears less valid and reliable than the SRM and PT systems.
Predicting On-Ice Skating Using Laboratory- and Field-Based Assessments in College Ice Hockey Players
Patrick Delisle-Houde, Nathan A. Chiarlitti, Ryan E.R. Reid, and Ross E. Andersen
has found a link between off-ice testing and on-ice performance using the plus/minus scoring system and net scoring chances, 4 , 6 but few studies explore off-ice testing with components of skating, and even fewer attempts to link novel laboratory testing to speed and agility. One area of off
Heart Rate–Blood Lactate Profiling in World-Class Biathletes During Cross-Country Skiing: The Difference Between Laboratory and Field Tests
Craig A. Staunton, Erik P. Andersson, Glenn Björklund, and Marko S. Laaksonen
and metabolic intensity domains. 3 For example, a common metabolic marker of exercise intensity is the concentration of blood lactate ([La]), where HR zones are designed to reflect various levels of [La]. 1 Elite-level athletes regularly perform laboratory-based testing sessions where they complete
Two Novel Slip Training Methods Improve the Likelihood of Recovering Balance After a Laboratory-Induced Slip
Leigh J. Allin, Maury A. Nussbaum, and Michael L. Madigan
hypothesized that individuals who undergo UST would exhibit a greater likelihood of recovering balance, lower slip severity, and improved kinematic responses of the feet compared with the VST group. This hypothesis was based upon the similarity between UST and our outcome test involving a laboratory
Evaluation of Two Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Brands in Laboratory and Free-Living Settings
Alexander H.K. Montoye, Olivia Coolman, Amberly Keyes, Megan Ready, Jaedyn Shelton, Ethan Willett, and Brian C. Rider
al., 2020 ), and a study by Sellers et al. ( 2016 ) found good to excellent intermonitor reliability of four activPAL monitors worn simultaneously during activities performed in a laboratory setting. However, we are unaware of studies evaluating intermonitor reliability of the activPAL monitor in a free
Interactive Digital Experience as an Alternative Laboratory (IDEAL): Creative Investigation of Forensic Biomechanics
Valerie A. Troutman and Michele J. Grimm
Active learning improves student understanding and retention of material. 1 In engineering, active learning may occur in laboratory units, but this is often not feasible for large classes, online/remote classes, or students with a range of abilities and learning styles. In the Spring 2020 semester
Predicting Trail-Running Performance With Laboratory Exercise Tests and Field-Based Results
Volker Scheer, Tanja I. Janssen, Solveig Vieluf, and Hans-Christian Heitkamp
laboratory exercise tests on the treadmill, 1 week apart at the same time of the day in a randomized order followed by a 31.1-km trail running competition (Hermannslauf 2017; cumulative ascent: +515 m/descent: +710 m, XS category International Trail Running Association classification). Tests: graded step
Laboratory Evaluation of Low-Cost Wearable Sensors for Measuring Head Impacts in Sports
Abigail M. Tyson, Stefan M. Duma, and Steven Rowson
on the field or in the laboratory under varying impact conditions, including headform type, impact locations, helmet use, and speeds, making it difficult to directly compare accuracy of different sensors across studies. Furthermore, most evaluations have not investigated sensor accuracy under short
