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.
Ryan Charles Luke and Jaye K. Luke
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
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
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
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
Greg Petrucci Jr., Patty Freedson, Brittany Masteller, Melanna Cox, John Staudenmayer and John Sirard
and not relying on participants to put the device back on after swimming or bathing. Fossil’s activity trackers have been well received by the public as the MS was recently listed as a top-rated activity tracker ( Stables, 2018 ). A recent laboratory study showed estimates of steps/minute from a hip
Francisco J. Vera-Garcia, Diego López-Plaza, Casto Juan-Recio and David Barbado
laboratory and field settings. As there is no single accepted definition of this term, 1 – 5 the characteristics of these tests and the parameters measured are very different (eg, trunk/spine stiffness, 6 – 8 participant’s center of pressure [CoP] fluctuations, 9 – 12 lumbopelvic displacement, 13 , 14
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sébastien Duc, Vincent Villerius, William Bertucci and Frédéric Grappe
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).
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.
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).
The EP power meter appears less valid and reliable than the SRM and PT systems.
Alan K. Bourke, Espen A. F. Ihlen and Jorunn L. Helbostad
semi-structured task-based protocol in supervised laboratory and free-living settings. The activPAL3 demonstrated an excellent level of detection of standardized postures in this population; however, postures such as seat-perching, kneeling, and crouching were misclassified. Purposeful stepping was