Original Research

Validity and Reliability of the Lode Excalibur Sport

Cycle Ergometer for the Wingate Anaerobic Test
William R. Lunn, and Robert S. Axtell
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Health and Movement Sciences, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven,
Connecticut

Abstract
Lunn, WR and Axtell, RS. Validity and reliability of the Lode Excalibur Sport cycle ergometer for the Wingate Anaerobic Test. J
Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—Although multiple testing devices advertise Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT), capability,
reliability, and validity data are sparse. The purpose was to determine whether the Lode Excalibur Sport cycle ergometer is a reliable
and valid instrument to conduct the 30-second WAnT when compared with the Monark 894e Peak Bike ergometer. Recreationally
active men (n 5 49; 20.6 6 2.5 years; 1.75 6 0.07 m; and 79.1 6 9.8 kg) completed four 30-second WAnTs: 2 each on the Lode
and the Monark ergometers for peak power (PP), mean power (MP), minimum power (MinP), fatigue index (FI), and peak cadence
(vmax) measurement. Interday and interunit correlation, multivariate analysis of variance, regression, and Bland-Altman analysis
determined reliability and validity. Cohen’s d was used to determine effect size. Relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient)
with 95% confidence interval for Monark and Lode was very high for PP, MP, MinP, and vmax and high for FI (r . 0.83; coefficient of
variation # 27.0%; p , 0.01). Interunit correlation was strong for PP, MP, MinP, and vmax (r . 0.75; p , 0.001) and moderate for FI
(p 5 0.001). Lode PP and FI values were significantly less (p , 0.001; d . 1.18) and MinP, MP, and vmax significantly greater (p #
0.001; d . 0.51) than Monark. Proportional bias was demonstrated for all variables (p , 0.04; d . 2.68) except vmax. The Lode
ergometer reliably provides WAnT outcomes and correlates well to the Monark ergometer. However, differences in power values
and proportional bias between differently braked instruments prevent use of the Lode ergometer for comparison of WAnT data with
normative data generated by the Monark ergometer.
Key Words: power, cycling, accuracy, sprint, SIT, Watts

Introduction the validating standard in published literature include relative

test-retest reliability with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and
Long considered the “gold standard” of anaerobic power mea-
coefficient of variation (CV) (4,5,24); absolute interunit reliability
surement, the mechanically braked Monark cycle ergometer is
(1,4,10); analysis of variance or t-test (1,4,5,10,18); regression
meeting competition from next-generation ergometers that seek
(4,10,18); and Bland-Altman analysis (1,7,18,24). However, in-
to combine submaximal testing with the classic, supramaximal
clusion of difference in software sampling rate effect between
Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) (3). The Lode Excalibur Sport
instruments on anaerobic power data generation, which has been
cycle ergometer (Lode BV, Groningen, the Netherlands), with an
demonstrated in the literature (6,28), has been absent from these
electromagnetically braked flywheel, has been a popular choice
reliability and validity studies. No single validation or reliability
among practitioners and physiologists for determination of aer-
study regarding cycle ergometer power measures has in-
obic, submaximal, steady-state performance (5,9,29). Having
corporated all aforementioned elements of reliability and validity.
software capability to administer the WAnT, the Lode cycle is
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to provide a compre-
a convenient option for aerobic and anaerobic power testing.
hensive validity and reliability analysis of the Lode Excalibur
However, validity and reliability data of the Lode instrument for
Sport cycle ergometer for the WAnT compared with the standard,
WAnT outcomes remain largely unavailable.
the Monark 894e Peak Bike ergometer. The authors hypothesized
A 2006 study provided reliability and validity data of an
that the Lode ergometer would be reliable, and the 2 ergometers
electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer (Lode) for the WAnT
would yield WAnT values that truly agree.
compared with the Monark mechanically braked standard (22).
Micklewright et al. (22) found no difference in peak power (PP)
and mean power (MP) between ergometers and concluded the
Lode cycle data were “valid indicators of anaerobic exercise Methods
performance and metabolic responses.” However, while neces- Experimental Approach to the Problem
sary to address differences between different ergometer types for
the WAnT, the 2006 study lacked comprehensive parameters for After screening, subjects completed a 30-second WAnT famil-
establishing reliability and validity. Common measures of er- iarization session on each ergometer. The familiarization protocol
gometer reliability and validity using the Monark ergometer as was identical to the test procedure detailed in the next section and
was performed at least 48 hours before the first data collection
Address correspondence to Dr. William R. Lunn, Lunnw1@southernct.edu. session. Saddle height above bottom bracket, saddle nose hori-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–8 zontal distance to bottom bracket (fore/aft position), saddle nose
ª 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association horizontal distance to stem, and saddle nose height above stem

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00
were recorded for each subject for duplication during the data
collection trials on both ergometers. Knee flexion was approxi-
mately 30° while the foot was at bottom dead center during the
pedal stroke. The Monark was chosen for the first familiarization
trial since the Monark seat after height adjustment is not as sensi-
tive as the Lode cycle, and height above bottom bracket and fore/aft
position duplication between instruments is critical for comparison
(27). On completion of familiarization, subjects were scheduled to
complete four 30-second WAnT data collection trials over a con-
tinuous 2-week interval (2 WAnTs each on the Monark and Lode
ergometers, in random assignment determined by coin flip). At
least 48 hours separated each test. Subjects were instructed to re-
frain from exhaustive lower-body exercise for 24 hours before each
trial and were instructed to consume a 240-kcal snack (CLIF Bar,
Emeryville, CA, USA) 2 hours before testing to control dietary
influence. Peak power (PP; in W·kg21), mean power (MP; in
W·kg21), minimum power (MinP; in W·kg21), fatigue index (FI; in
%), and maximum pedal cadence (vmax; in rpm) were recorded
during each trial. Instituting test-retest reliability parameters pre-
viously established by Granier et al. (8) and Bar-Or (3), in the event
that PP increased $8% between the 2 data collection trials for each
cycle, a third trial was administered. If the third trial still did not
meet the criteria, the subject was omitted from the study to avoid
a “distorted response” (18); consequently, 5 subjects were ex-
cluded. Three distorted responses were observed on the Monark
ergometer, and 2 observed on the Lode ergometer. Three addi-
tional subjects required a third trial (2 on the Lode; 1 on the
Monark), but were able to meet the criterion on the third trial. Time
of day, cycle geometry, pedal style (toe strap), and pedal crank arm
length (170 mm) were identical on each trial and between ergo-
meters. In addition, each subject used the same Monark and Lode
ergometer for each trial. Pre-test and post-test recovery blood
pressure was measured by brachial artery auscultation.
Monark Ergometer Test Procedure. Once cycle fit settings were
configured, each subject cycled for 5 minutes at a comfortable,
self-selected cadence at 50 W on the mechanically braked Monark
894e Peak Bike (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden). Then,
the subject completed three 5-second supramaximal sprints at the
prescribed resistance (0.075 kg·kg body mass21) while the tech-
nician provided strong verbal encouragement, each separated by
45 seconds of comfortable pedaling at 50 W, for neuromuscular
activation and physiologic warm-up. The flywheel load was
chosen because it is a common laboratory load for the Monark
WAnT that may be widely used by practitioners to generate
normative data or data with intent to compare with norms. After
an additional 3 minutes of comfortable pedaling at 50 W, the
subject completed the 30-second WAnT. Before the WAnT, the
technician instructed the subject to maintain a comfortable,
submaximal cadence (60–100 rpm) until the resistance was ap-
plied to the flywheel, as detailed by Lunn et al. (19). Then, the
technician provided strong, verbal encouragement throughout
the 30 seconds to ensure “all-out” effort by the subject. Peak
power (highest value over a 5-second interval), MP (mean value of
all 5-second intervals), MinP (lowest value over a 5-second in-
terval), FI (MinP divided by PP, subtracted from 100, multiplied
by 100), and vmax (highest single data point) were recorded by
Wingate Anaerobic Test Software, v. 2.2 (Monark Exercise AB).
Sampling rate was the default setting of 50 Hz.
Lode Ergometer Test Protocol. The protocol on the Lode Excali-
bur Sport electromagnetically braked cycle (Lode BV, Groningen,
the Netherlands) was identical to the Monark with the exception of
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the resistance setting and application, which was a torque factor of
0.7 N·m·kg body mass21 and electronic magnet modulation, re-
spectively. The torque factor was chosen because as the default
factory setting, that torque factor may be widely used by practi-
tioners to generate normative data or data with intent to compare
with norms. Peak power (highest single data point), MP (mean value
of all data points), MinP (lowest single data point), FI (MinP divided
by PP, subtracted from 100, multiplied by 100), and vmax (highest
single data point) were recorded by Lode Ergometry Manager, v. 9
(Lode BV). Sampling rate was the default setting of 5 Hz.
The authors of the present study deliberately chose a flywheel
resistance of 0.075 kg·kg body mass21 for the Monark cycle despite
recommendations of a resistance of 0.087 kg·kg body mass21 for
accurate power measurement in healthy adults (33) and as high as
0.11 kg·kg body mass21 (15,31) and 0.18 kg·kg body mass21 (25)
for optimal PP measurement. As Jaafar et al. (15) demonstrated that
flywheel load affects only PP magnitude, not reliability, the present
authors were confident to intentionally use a less-than-optimal load
to attempt validation and reliability of the Lode electromagnetically
braked ergometer with its flywheel resistance (0.7 N·m·kg21). The
resistance values are default settings and used by practitioners gen-
erating classic athlete normative data (17,21,32), despite the rec-
ommendations for optimal power production.
Subjects
Men (n 5 49; 20.6 6 2.5 years; 1.75 6 0.07 m; and 79.1 6 9.8 kg;
data are means 6 SD) completed the study. Initially, 54 men were
recruited, but 5 were determined ineligible to complete the study,
explained in Experimental Design. Health screening to determine
normotension and no history of metabolic or cardiovascular
disease or mobility impairment constituted eligibility. All sub-
jects, aged 18–27 years, were recreationally active in activities
such as weightlifting, rugby, ice hockey, soccer, running, and
calisthenics. All but 1 subject were naive to cycling. Subjects
provided voluntary, written, informed consent. The study was
approved for ethical treatment of human subjects by the In-
stitutional Review Board at Southern Connecticut State Univer-
sity in New Haven, CT (IRB #17-072). To determine a population
sample size to support statistical power for linear regression, an
a priori sample size calculator provided by Soper (30) using an
algorithm based on anticipated effect size (0.35–1.0), desired
power level (0.8), and probability (p , 0.05) level was used. A
minimum sample size of n 5 46 was determined.
Statistical Analyses
All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 24 (IBM, Corp.,
Armonk, NY). Normal distribution of data was confirmed for each
variable by the Shapiro-Wilk test. To assess relative test-retest re-
liability, intraclass correlation with 95% CIs and CV were de-
termined for each of PP, MP, MinP, FI, and vmax from each trial
for each ergometer. Correlations were considered very high, high,
moderate, low, or negligible when the r value was 0.90–1.00,
0.70–0.90, 0.50–0.70, 0.30–0.50, or 0.00–0.30, respectively (23).
Once relative reliability was established for each ergometer, Pear-
son’s correlations and typical error of the measurement (TEM)
were determined to assess absolute, interunit reliability from the
mean of each variable from the 2 trials. Typical error of the mea-
surement was calculated as the product of the SD of the pooled
mean values and the square root of 1 minus Pearson’s r, then
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
multiplied by 100 ðTEM 5 ½SD ð1 2 rÞ 3 100Þ (11).
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

To evaluate validity of the Lode ergometer compared with the

0.22 (20.34 to 0.79)

0.03 (20.54 to 0.60)
0.12 (20.44 to 0.69)
0.32 (20.26 to 0.88)
0.30 (20.27 to 0.87)
Cohen’s d (95% CI)
Monark ergometer, 3 treatments were used: (a) A regression for-
mula was constructed to predict each variable for Lode from
Monark. (b) A 1-way multivariate analysis of variance (MAN-
OVA) was used to determine significant difference of the mean
values for each variable between ergometers. In the event of a sig-
nificant F-statistic, a Bonferroni post hoc test was used to determine
significant pairwise comparisons. (c) To evaluate proportional bias

0.94† (0.88–0.96)
0.93† (0.87–0.96)
0.96† (0.93–0.98)
0.83† (0.70–0.90)
0.95† (0.90–0.97)
ICC, r (95% CI)
between the 2 ergometers, Bland-Altman plot and analysis from the
difference of the mean was used to determine limits of agreement
for each variable. When the analysis demonstrated a significant
bias between the instruments on the raw data, the analysis was
repeated on the logarithmically transformed data to reduce data
nonuniformity (13). The log-transformed data are shown in the

CV (%)

12.1
20.4
24.0
8.9

8.9
Lode
results. Proportional bias was determined when the t-score for the
coefficient of the mean of the difference indicated the mean of the
difference was not equal to zero (p , 0.05).

43.19 6 10.39
149.32 6 13.31
Trial 2 (6SD)
10.93 6 0.97
8.58 6 1.04
6.22 6 1.27
Cohen’s d was used to assess effect size of the test-retest re-
liability, absolute reliability, MANOVA, and Bland-Altman
analysis and was calculated as the difference of the mean values
of each variable from each ergometer divided by pooled SD
.
ðM1 2 M2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
½ðSD21 1 SD22 Þ=2Þ. For the recreationally trained

CV (%)
10.1
12.1
19.0
27.0
9.9
subject sample in this study, effect size was considered trivial,

39.86 6 10.77
145.19 6 14.40
small, moderate, and large when the Cohen’s d value was ,0.35,

Trial 1 (6SD)
10.62 6 1.07
8.61 6 1.04
6.37 6 1.21
0.35–0.80, 0.80–1.5, and .1.5, respectively (26). The alpha level
was set a priori at p , 0.05.

*CV 5 coefficient of variation; ICC 5 intraclass correlation coefficient; CI 5 confidence interval; PP 5 peak power; MP 5 mean power; FI 5 fatigue index.
Relative reliability (intraclass correlation) of Monark and Lode ergometers for WAnT variables (n 5 49).*
Results

0.10 (20.46 to 0.67)

0.01 (20.55 to 0.58)
0.23 (20.34 to 0.80)
0.32 (20.25 to 0.89)
0.24 (20.33 to 0.81)
Cohen’s d (95% CI)
Relative Reliability
Significant, high to very high intraclass correlations for all vari-
ables for each of the Lode and Monark ergometers were observed
(r $ 0.83; CV # 27.0%; Table 1).

Absolute Reliability
0.97† (0.94–0.98)
0.90† (0.82–0.94)
0.97† (0.94–0.98)
0.87† (0.77–0.92)
0.96† (0.92–0.98)
ICC, r (95% CI)

Significant, high to very high interunit correlations were observed

comparing the grand mean of each variable between the Lode and
Monark ergometers (r $ 0.75; Table 2). A regression equation
was constructed for each variable, and total error was calculated
(Table 2 and Figure 1). For each variable, the model was signifi-
CV (%)
Monark

cant (p , 0.001). The slope and intercept were significantly dif-

15.1
11.0
19.1
12.3
10.4

ferent from zero for PP (p , 0.001), MP (p 5 0.004), MinP (p 5

0.002), and FI (p , 0.001), but not for vmax (p 5 0.15).
141.77 6 14.74
Trial 2 (6SD)
12.69 6 1.92
8.09 6 0.89
4.55 6 0.87
63.60 6 7.84

Proportional Bias Between Ergometers

Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a true proportional bias be-
tween ergometers for all variables except vmax. (Table 2 and
CV (%)
16.2
10.9
16.9
11.9
11.4

Figure 2). Effect size by Cohen’s d was large for all variables
(Table 2).
138.08 6 15.79
Trial 1 (6SD)
12.49 6 2.02
8.10 6 0.88
4.74 6 0.80
61.19 6 7.31

Multivariate Analysis of Variance

The MANOVA resulted in significant differences in mean PP
†Significant at p , 0.001.

[F(1,190) 5 66.0, p , 0.001], MP [F(1,190) 5 13.4, p , 0.001],

MinP [F(1,190) 5 118.7, p , 0.001], FI [F(1,190) 5 246.4, p ,
MinP (W·kg21)

0.001], and vmax [F(1,190) 5 12.1, p 5 0.001] between ergo-

MP (W·kg21)
PP (W·kg21)
Table 1

vmax (rpm)

meters. Typical error of the measurement was #0.13% for each

Variable

variable. Effect size by Cohen’s d was large for MinP and FI,
FI (%)

moderate for PP, and small for MP and vmax (Table 2).

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00

Lodevmax 5 1.038Monarkvmax 1 13.371§

Discussion

Lodeminp 5 0.559Monarkminp 2 1.119§

Lodemp 5 0.778Monarkmp 2 1.395§
Lodepp 5 1.745Monarkpp 1 6.256§
The major findings of the present study were that the Lode Ex-

Lodefi 5 0.463Monarkfi 2 43.104§

calibur Sport electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer pro-
vided reliable and highly correlated muscular power data

Regression
Equation
compared with the Monark 894e Peak Bike mechanically braked
ergometer for the Wingate Anaerobic Test using default flywheel
resistance settings. Furthermore, regression equations determined
to predict each variable on the Lode ergometer from the Monark
ergometer data were significant. These data are in agreement with
published reliability and validity data for alternative anaerobic
tests compared against the Monark cycle
Cohen’s d (95% CI)

(1,2,4,7,10,16,18,20,24). Reliability can be inferred and also

3.60 (2.69–4.52)
3.44 (2.55–4.34)
3.00 (2.18–3.83)
2.68 (1.90–3.46)
3.95 (2.98–4.92)
corroborates the findings by Micklewright et al. (22), who also
compared mechanically and electromagnetically braked instru-
ments. However, unlike the results from Micklewright et al. (22),
Bland-Altman proportional bias data

the Lode device yielded power numbers significantly different

than the Monark with medium to large effect sizes, as evidenced
,0.001

,0.001
0.002

by the MANOVA, and produced data with a true proportional

0.04

0.09
p‡

bias against the Monark ergometer, demonstrated by the Bland-

Altman analysis.
Mean difference
0.16 6 0.36
20.36 6 0.53
0.17 6 0.25
1.28 6 0.22
0.78 6 0.51

The current study confirms that the Lode ergometer is a highly

reliable instrument to measure common WAnT variables, evi-
MANOVA, absolute reliability, proportional bias, and prediction data for WAnT variables between ergometers (n 5 49).*

denced by the relative, interday correlations, and correlates

*MANOVA 5 multivariate analysis of variance; TEM 5 typical error of the measurement; CI 5 confidence interval; PP 5 peak power; MP 5 mean power; FI 5 fatigue index.

strongly to the Monark ergometer, demonstrated by the absolute,

interunit reliability data. Ozkaya et al. (24) produced test-retest
1.064 6 0.054
0.918 6 0.051
0.730 6 0.082
1.711 6 0.066
2.154 6 0.044

CV data (back-calculated by the present authors using SD rather

Mean

than SEM) for a WAnT that were consistently 1.3 times less than
CV values for the same variables from this study on both the
Monark and Lode ergometers. A notable difference between this
study and the Ozkaya et al. (24) study subject cohort is training
0.53 (20.05 to 1.10)

0.51 (20.06 to 1.09)

Cohen’s d (95% CI)
1.18 (0.56 to 1.79)

1.62 (0.97 to 2.28)

2.44 (1.69 to 3.19)

status; the present authors recruited recreationally active college

students, while Ozkaya et al. (24) recruited “well-trained, spe-
cialized athletes.” Hopkins et al. (14) reported that CV for power
indices from physical performance tests is typically 1.3 times
larger for nonathletes vs. athletes. Therefore, the present authors
have confidence in the relative reliability of the Lode ergometer
Pearson’s r (95% CI)

based on the instrument’s agreement with recently published re-

0.84 (0.72–0.91)
0.95 (0.90–0.97)
0.87 (0.77–0.93)
0.75 (0.56–0.86)
0.96 (0.93–0.98)

liability data.
Reliability and validity data for the Lode ergometer are limited
MANOVA and absolute reliability

in the published literature and are specific to aerobic power

‡p values ,0.05 indicate mean of the difference not equal to zero, and a proportional bias exists.

measures. Earnest et al. (5) reported high reliability of the Lode

ergometer to an electromagnetically braked ergometer (Compu-
trainer) when measuring time to exhaustion, PP output, and heart
0.71 (0.06)
0.22 (0.03)
0.47 (0.09)
6.75 (0.13)
2.90 (0.02)
TEM (%)

rate. However, the absolute performance values from the Lode

were significantly different than the Computrainer. The present
study similarly determined that all WAnT variables from the Lode
ergometer were significantly different from those generated by the
Monark grand mean Lode grand mean

147.25† 6 13.51
10.78† 6 0.99
8.60† 6 1.02
6.30† 6 1.20
41.53† 6 9.78

Monark ergometer, despite high interunit correlation between the

2 instruments and significant regression equations. Furthermore,
a proportional bias exists between instruments for all WAnT
variables except vmax. Astorino and Cottrell (1) reported similar,
†Significantly different from Monark at p , 0.001.

significant differences in power indices and proportional bias

comparing a Velotron ergometer (electronically braked) com-
139.88 6 15.27
12.59 6 1.94
8.10 6 0.87
4.65 6 0.79
62.40 6 7.12

pared with the Monark Peak Bike (mechanically braked), despite

§Model is significant at p , 0.001.

high reliability. A prominent conclusion from the study by

Astorino and Cottrell (1) was that power “results cannot be used
interchangeably between ergometers.” Moreover, Del Coso and
Mora-Rodriguez (4) observed significantly different PP values,
MinP (W·kg21)

yet significant regression equations predicting PP from a brief

MP (W·kg21)
Table 2

PP (W·kg21)

vmax (rpm)

inertial load test compared with the traditional 30-second WAnT

on the Monark ergometer. Del Coso and Mora-Rodriguez (4)
FI (%)

were careful to conclude that while reliable, the validity of the

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 1. Absolute (interunit) reliability for WAnT variables between Lode and Monark cycle ergometer. A) PP, total
error 5 1.623 W·kg21; (B) MP, total error 5 0.371 W·kg21; (C) MinP, total error 5 0.442 W·kg21; (D) FI, total error 5
5.635%; and (E) vmax, total error 5 5.442 rpm (n 5 49). PP 5 peak power; MP 5 mean power; FI 5 fatigue index.

experimental inertial load test is limited to brief (4-second) mea-
surement intervals. The current study corroborates these findings
regarding discrepancy between reliability and comparison of
absolute power values between mechanically and electronically
braked ergometers. A common theme from WAnT method-
comparison studies between differently braked ergometers is that
in practical application, data from the 2 devices should not be
used for interunit comparison.
Over a decade ago, Hopkins (12) wrote that Bland-Altman plots
are not useful in method-comparison studies, and that regression is
the superior approach. Despite the comprehensive undressing of
Bland-Altman in favor of regression, several validation studies on
power measurement have since been published using Bland-Altman
as a measure of validity (1,5,7,10,18,24). Although regression
equations accompanied Bland-Altman analysis on most of these
investigations, it must be noted that Bland-Altman is still considered
a viable metric for power measurement method-comparison
validity. In the present study, the Bland-Altman plot analysis sup-
ported the MANOVA resulting in significant difference in the
power variables between the 2 ergometers by demonstrating pro-
portional bias in the Lode device with very large effect sizes.
Although the MANOVA resulted in a significant difference in
vmax between Lode and Monark, the effect size was small (0.51),
and the Bland-Altman analysis determined no proportional bias
between instruments for that variable. Since power is calculated
from pedal angular velocity (cadence) by both the Monark An-
aerobic Software and the Lode Ergometry Manager, the dis-
crepancy in power values between instruments may be caused by
sampling rate. Santos et al. (28) found a bias in PP calculation
during a WAnT when sampling rates differed; low sampling rates
(0.2 Hz) resulted in lower PP and MP values than higher (5 Hz)
rates. In this study, PP from the Lode cycle was lower than on the
Monark; yet, MP was higher on the Lode. Peak power on the
Monark Anaerobic Test Software (ATS) is calculated as the

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00

Figure 2. Bland-Altman plots for log-transformed WAnT variables between Lode and Monark cycle ergometers. A) Peak
power, (B) MP, (C) MinP, (D) FI, and (E) vmax. Upper and lower lines indicate 95% CI (n 5 49). PP 5 peak power; MP 5 mean
power; FI 5 fatigue index; CI 5 confidence interval.

highest running average of 1 second, whereas the PP on the ver-
sion of the Lode Ergometry Manager (LEM) used is determined as
the highest value attained during the test. Although small time
intervals over which power is calculated typically yield greater
power values (6), sampling rate differences may impose a greater
influence. The high sampling rate in the Monark ATS (50 Hz)
dwarfed that in the LEM software (5 Hz), which likely contrib-
uted to the blunted PP response in the Lode cycle. Seemingly
contradictory, the higher MP in the Lode cycle may have been
a result of distorted (greater) sampling sensitivity at the end of
a WAnT administration, as evidenced by Ozkaya et al. (24). The
greater sensitivity at the end of the test may cause higher power
values at the end of the test, resulting in inflated MP values.
Furthermore, the impact of greater end-test sensitivity may be
more pronounced in the LEM than the Monark ATS, which al-
ready has an exceptionally high initial sampling rate.
To that end, the high reliability yet discrepancy in power out-
come comparisons between 2 differently braked, WAnT-
capability instruments agree with data by Astorino and Cottrell
(1), who compared WAnT data from a Velotron cycle (electron-
ically braked) to the Monark (mechanically braked). These data,
as in the present study, refute the results by Micklewright et al.
(22) that showed no significant difference in PP or MP. Astorino
and Cottrell (1) found PP was 8.2% higher and MP was 12.9%
lower from the Velotron test compared with the Monark. Al-
though sampling rates were identical (10 Hz), the authors stated
that the difference in brake modulation between the cycles may
affect physiologic performance during the test, resulting in power
outcome variation (1). Subjects in the present study commented
that despite a smoother pedaling action on the Lode ergometer
and a more sudden application of force on the Monark cycle, the
WAnT effort on the Lode device seemed more challenging. This

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00
observation may explain the significantly lower power outcomes
on the Lode ergometer. Although the current study observed the
opposite pattern from the Astorino and Cottrell (1) data (lower PP
and higher MP in the alternate instrument than the “gold stan-
dard” Monark), the evidence remains that differently braked
cycle ergometers, with either similar or different test software
sampling rates, produce dissimilar power values.
The present study was not without limitations. As only men
were recruited to participate, the authors cannot extend con-
clusions of ergometer discrepancy to women. Subjects were
recruited from a recreationally active population. As such, an-
aerobically trained athletes may produce power outcomes dif-
ferently between the 2 ergometers than the recreationally active
individuals in this study. Finally, despite exclusion of only 5
subjects after inability to achieve reasonable agreement in PP
between trials after familiarization, the familiarization session
was not as comprehensive as was detailed in recent work by
Ozkaya et al. (24). Although the present authors feel the level of
adaptation in the familiarization was adequate, the detailed,
staged introduction to the WAnT described by Ozkaya et al. (24)
bears recognition. Overall, the authors of the current study retain
their hypothesis that the Lode Excalibur Sport cycle ergometer
would reliably provide WAnT data, but reject the hypothesis that
the Lode ergometer would produce WAnT data that truly agree
with those generated by the Monark 894e Peak Bike.
Practical Applications
The Lode Excalibur Sport cycle ergometer reliably produced
WAnT data that were highly correlated to the Monark 894e
Peak Bike ergometer. However, absolute power values (PP,
MP, MinP, and FI) were all significantly different between
instruments (with medium to large effect sizes), and a true
proportional bias between ergometers for all anaerobic power
measures was demonstrated with large effect sizes for PP, the
most important measure of the WAnT. Therefore, the results
are meaningful across a large population, and validity of the
Lode ergometer is poor. Dissimilar braking modulation be-
tween mechanically and electromagnetically braked flywheels
likely explains the discrepancy. The difference in common
muscular power values between instruments prevents the use
of the Lode ergometer in comparing WAnT data with nor-
mative data generated by the Monark ergometer. Practitioners
should use caution when choosing an ergometer for genera-
tion of anaerobic power data and should not compare WAnT
data generated by a Lode Excalibur Sport with those gener-
ated by a Monark 894e Peak Bike. Perhaps, future research
can elucidate correction factors to apply to electromagneti-
cally braked ergometers when comparing data to mechan-
ically braked flywheels (or vice versa) when software sampling
rates are identical.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the subjects for their time, effort, sweat, and
occasional nausea.
References
1. Astorino TA, Cottrell T. Reliability and validity of the Velotron Racer-
mate cycle ergometer to measure anaerobic power. Int J Sports Med 32:
1–5, 2011.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
2. Attia A, Hachana Y, Chaabene H, et al. Reliability and validity of a 20-s
alternative to the Wingate Anaerobic Test in team sport male athletes.
PLoS One 9: e114444, 2014.
3. Bar-Or O. The Wingate anaerobic test: An update on methodology, re-
liability, and validity. Sports Med 4: 381–394, 1987.
4. Del Coso J, Mora-Rodriguez R. Validity of cycling peak power as mea-
sured by a short-sprint test versus the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Appl
Physiol Nutr Metab 31: 186–189, 2006.
5. Earnest CP, Wharton RP, Church TS, Lucia A. Reliability of the Lode
Excalibur Sport ergometer and applicability to Computrainer electro-
magnetically braked cycling training device. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19:
344–348, 2005.
6. Franklin KL, Gordon RS, Davies B, Baker JS. Assessing accuracy of
measurements for a Wingate Test using the Taguchi method. Res Sports
Med 16: 1–14, 2008.
7. Glaner MF, Silva RA. Validation of a new cycle ergometer. Int J Sports
Med 32: 117–121, 2011.
8. Granier P, Mercier B, Mercier J, Anselme F, Prefaut C. Aerobic and
anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in sprint and
middle-distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 70:
58–65, 1995.
9. Hauser T, Adam J, Schulz H. Comparison of calculated and experimental
power in maximal lactate-steady state during cycling. Theor Biol Mol
Model 11: 25, 2014.
10. Herbert P, Sculthorpe N, Baker JS, Grace FM. Validation of a six second
cycle test for the determination of peak power output. Res Sports Med 23:
115–125, 2015.
11. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
Sports Med 1: 1–15, 2000.
12. Hopkins WG. Bias in Bland-Altman but not regression validity analyses.
Sportscience 8: 42–46, 2004.
13. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive sta-
tistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
14. Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical
performance tests. Sports Med 31: 211–234, 2001.
15. Jaafar H, Rouis M, Coudrat L, Attiogbe E, Vandewalle H, Driss T. Effects
of load on Wingate test performances and reliability. J Strength Cond Res
28: 3462–3468, 2014.
16. Kavaliauskas M, Phillips SM. Reliability and sensitivity of the 6 and 30
second Wingate tests in physically active males and females. Isokinet
Exerc Sci 24: 277–284, 2016.
17. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-McBride NT, et al. Physiological
changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 35: 157–168, 2003.
18. Laurent CM Jr, Meyers MC, Robinson CA, Green JM. Cross-validation
of the 20-second versus 30-second anaerobic test. Eur J Appl Physiol 100:
645–651, 2007.
19. Lunn WR, Zenoni MA, Crandall IH, Dress AE, Berglund ML. Lower
Wingate test power outcomes from “all-out” pretest pedaling cadence
compared with moderate cadence. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2367–2373,
2015.
20. Malone JK, Blake C, Caulfield B. Test-retest reliability of the 30-sec
Wingate cycle test in a trained male cohort. Isokinet Exerc Sci 22:
251–258, 2014.
21. Mangine RE, Noyes FR, Mullen MP, Barber-Westin SD. A physiological
profile of the elite soccer player. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 12: 147–152,
1990.
22. Micklewright D, Alkhatib A, Beneke R. Mechanically versus electro-
magnetically braked cycle ergometer: Performance and energy cost of the
Wingate anaerobic test. Eur J Appl Physiol 96: 748–751, 2006.
23. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation
coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24: 69–71, 2012.
24. Ozkaya O, Balci GA, As H, Varlardi E. The test-retest reliability of new
generation power indices of Wingate all-out test. Sports (Basel) 6: E31,
2018.
25. Ozkaya O, Colakoglu M, Kuzucu EO, Yildiztepe E. Mechanically
braked elliptical Wingate test: Modification considerations, load
optimization, and reliability. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1313–1323,
2012.
26. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength
training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res 18:
918–920, 2004.
27. Ricard MD, Hills-Meyer P, Miller MG, Michael TJ. The effects of bicycle
frame geometry on muscle activation and power during a Wingate an-
aerobic test. J Sports Sci Med 5: 25–32, 2006.
 Validity and Reliability (2019) 00:00
28. Santos EL, Novaes JS, Reis VM, Giannella-Neto A. Low sampling rates
bias outcomes from the Wingate test. Int J Sports Med 31: 784–789, 2010.
29. Siedlik JA, Harrison G, Brigman R, et al. Methods comparison: Assessing
agreement of physiological parameters obtained from exercise on two
different cycle ergometers. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1139–1145, 2015.
30. Soper DS. A-Priori Sample Size Calculator for Multiple Regression [soft-
ware]. 2018. Available at: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc. Re-
trieved on July 21, 2018.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
31. Ucok K, Gokbel H, Okudan N. The load of the Wingate test: According to
the body weight or lean body mass. Eur J Gen Med 2: 10–13, 2005.
32. Vanderford ML, Meyers MC, Skelly WA, Stewart CC, Hamilton KL.
Physiological and sport-specific skill response of Olympic youth soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 334–342, 2004.
33. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J, Monod H. Force-velocity re-
lationship and maximal power on a cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 56: 650–656, 1987.