OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences in physiological performance at constant submaximal load and aerobic power levels of electromagnetically and mechanically braked cycle ergometers.

METHOD: Nineteen trained male athletes who specialize in cycling and triathlons participate in this study (age, 20.21 ± 3.50 years; body mass, 73.36 ± 13.19 kg; height, 178.73 ± 8.54 cm). A randomized cross-over study design was used to compare a mechanically braked Monark cycle ergometer (MCE) and an electromagnetically braked Lode Excalibur cycle ergometer (ECE). After the VO $_{2max}$ test, total physical work capacity and work efficiency(GE) were analysed during 60% of VO $_{2max}$ constant loading submaximal tests with MCE and ECE. A paired sample t-test was used to compare VO $_{2max}$ and constant loading submaximal test data of the ergometers.

RESULTS: Applying the ECE system resulted in a significantly higher VO $_{2max}$ value (9.3%; p=0.004), similar respiratory exchange ratio value (1.8% lower; p=0.290), similar power output at exhaustion point (1% higher; p=0.620), significantly higher total energy expenditure at exhaustion point and mean cadence(Cad $_{mean}$ ) value (12%; p=0.025, 9.6%; p=0.000) respectively. In the constant loading submaximal tests, however, significant differences were found in mean power output (p=0.013), Cad $_{mean}$ (p=0.000), and GE (p=0.000) values.

CONCLUSION: Since the ECE system was associated with a higher VO $_{2max}$ and allowed test performance at the expected VO $_{2}$ consumption at constant submaximal loads, we recommend using the ECE for determination of aerobic power and total physical workloads.