Validity and reproducibility of the ErgomoPro power meter compared with the SRM and Powertap power meters

Effects of Flat and Uphill Cycling on the Power-duration Relationship

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of flat and uphill cycling on critical power and the work available above critical power. Thirteen well-trained endurance athletes performed three prediction trials of 10-, 4- and 1-min in both flat (0.6%) and uphill (9.8%) cycling conditions on two separate days. Critical power and the work available above critical power were estimated using various mathematical models. The best individual fit was used for further statistical analyses. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were applied to compare power output and parameter estimates between cycling conditions. Power output during the 10- and 4-min prediction trial and power output at critical power were not significantly affected by test conditions (all at p>0.05), but the limits of agreement between flat and uphill cycling power output and critical power estimates are too large to consider both conditions as equivalent. However, power output during the 1-min prediction trial and the work available above critical power were significantly higher during uphill compared to flat cycling (p<0.05). The results of this investigation indicate that gradient affects cycling time-trial performance, power output at critical power, and the amount of work available above critical power.

Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review

A large number of power meters have become commercially available during the last decades to provide power output (PO) measurement. Some of these power meters were evaluated for validity in the literature. This study aimed to perform a review of the available literature on the validity of cycling power meters. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar have been explored with PRISMA methodology. A total of 74 studies have been extracted for the reviewing process. Validity is a general quality of the measurement determined by the assessment of different metrological properties: Accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness. Accuracy was most often studied from the metrological property (74 studies). Reproducibility was the second most studied (40 studies) property. Finally, repeatability, sensitivity, and robustness were considerably less studied with only 7, 5, and 5 studies, respectively. The SRM power meter is the most used as a gold standard in the studies. Moreover, the number of participants was very different among them, from 0 (when using a calibration rig) to 56 participants. The PO tested was up to 1700 W, whereas the pedalling cadence ranged between 40 and 180 rpm, including submaximal and maximal exercises. Other exercise conditions were tested, such as torque, position, temperature, and vibrations. This review provides some caveats and recommendations when testing the validity of a cycling power meter, including all of the metrological properties (accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness) and some exercise conditions (PO range, sprint, pedalling cadence, torque, position, participant, temperature, vibration, and field test).

The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a tire pressure sensor (TPS) cycling power meter against a gold standard (SRM) during indoor cycling. Twelve recreationally active participants completed eight trials of 90 s of cycling at different pedaling and gearing combinations on an indoor hybrid roller. Power output (PO) was simultaneously calculated via TPS and SRM. The analysis compared the paired 1 s PO and 1 min average PO per trial between devices. Agreement was assessed by correlation, linear regression, inferential statistics, effect size, and Bland–Altman LoA. Reliability was assessed by ICC and CV comparison. TPS showed near-perfect correlation with SRM in 1 s (r_s = 0.97, p < 0.001) and 1-min data (r_s = 0.99, p < 0.001). Differences in paired 1 s data were statistically significant (p = 0.04), but of a trivial magnitude (d = 0.05). There was no significant main effect for device (F(1,9) = 0.05, p = 0.83, ηp2 = 0.97) in 1 min data and no statistical differences between devices by trial in post hoc analysis (p < 0.01–0.98; d < 0.01–0.93). Bias and LoA were −0.21 ± 16.77 W for the 1 min data. Mean TPS bias ranged from 3.37% to 7.81% of the measured SRM mean PO per trial. Linear regression SEE was 7.55 W for 1 min TPS prediction of SRM. ICC_3,1 across trials was 0.96. No statistical difference (p = 0.09–0.11) in TPS CV (3.6–5.0%) and SRM CV (4.3–4.7%). The TPS is a valid and reliable power meter for estimating average indoor PO for time periods equal to or greater than 1 min and may have acceptable sensitivity to detect changes under less stringent criteria (±5%).

Validity and Reliability of the Stages Cycling Power Meter

Granier, C, Hausswirth, C, Dorel, S, and Le Meur, Y. Validity and reliability of the stages cycling power meter. J Strength Cond Res 34(12): 3554-3559, 2020-This study aimed to determine the validity and the reliability of the Stages power meter crank system (Boulder, United States) during several laboratory cycling tasks. Eleven trained subjects completed laboratory cycling trials on an indoor cycle fitted with SRM Professional and Stages systems. The trials consisted of an incremental test at 100 W, 200 W, 300 W, 400 W, and four 7-s sprints. The level of pedaling asymmetry was determined for each cycling intensity during a similar protocol completed on a Lode Excalibur Sport ergometer. The reliability of Stages and SRM power meters was compared by repeating the incremental test during a test-retest protocol on a Cyclus 2 ergometer. Over power ranges of 100-1,250 W, the Stages system produced trivial to small differences compared with the SRM (standardized typical error values of 0.06, 0.24, and 0.08 for the incremental, sprint, and combined trials, respectively). A large correlation was reported between the difference in power output (PO) between the 2 systems and the level of pedaling asymmetry (r = 0.58, p < 0.001). Recalculating PO of the Stages system according to the level of pedaling asymmetry provided only marginal improvements in PO measures. The reliability of the Stages power meter at the submaximal intensities was similar to the SRM Professional model (coefficient of variation: 2.1 and 1.3% for Stages and SRM, respectively). The Stages system is a suitable device for PO measurements, except when a typical error of measurement <3.0% over power ranges of 100-1,250 W is expected.

Validity of the Favero Assioma Duo Power Pedal System for Measuring Power Output and Cadence

Cycling power meters enable monitoring external loads and performance changes. We aimed to determine the concurrent validity of the novel Favero Assioma Duo (FAD) pedal power meter compared with the crank-based SRM system (considered as gold standard). Thirty-three well-trained male cyclists were assessed at different power output (PO) levels (100-500 W and all-out 15-s sprints), pedaling cadences (75-100 rpm) and cycling positions (seating and standing) to compare the FAD device vs. SRM. No significant differences were found between devices for cadence nor for PO during all-out efforts (p > 0.05), although significant but small differences were found for efforts at lower PO values (p < 0.05 for 100-500 W, mean bias 3-8 W). A strong agreement was observed between both devices for mean cadence (ICC > 0.87) and PO values (ICC > 0.81) recorded in essentially all conditions and for peak cadence (ICC > 0.98) and peak PO (ICC > 0.99) during all-out efforts. The coefficient of variation for PO values was consistently lower than 3%. In conclusion, the FAD pedal-based power meter can be considered an overall valid system to record PO and cadence during cycling, although it might present a small bias compared with power meters placed on other locations such as SRM.

Validity of the Velocomp PowerPod Compared With the Verve Cycling InfoCrank Power Meter

PURPOSE

To determine the validity of the Velocomp PowerPod power meter in comparison with the Verve Cycling InfoCrank power meter.

METHODS

This research involved 2 separate studies. In study 1, 12 recreational male road cyclists completed 7 maximal cycling efforts of a known duration (2 times 5 s and 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 s). In study 2, 4 elite male road cyclists completed 13 outdoor cycling sessions. In both studies, power output of cyclists was continuously measured using both the PowerPod and InfoCrank power meters. Maximal mean power output was calculated for durations of 1, 5, 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 seconds plus the average power output in study 2.

RESULTS

Power output determined by the PowerPod was almost perfectly correlated with the InfoCrank (r > .996; P < .001) in both studies. Using a rolling resistance previously reported, power output was similar between power meters in study 1 (P = .989), but not in study 2 (P = .045). Rolling resistance estimated by the PowerPod was higher than what has been previously reported; this might have occurred because of errors in the subjective device setup. This overestimation of rolling resistance increased the power output readings.

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of rolling resistance seems to be very important in determining power output using the PowerPod. When using a rolling resistance based on previous literature, the PowerPod showed high validity when compared with the InfoCrank in a controlled field test (study 1) but less so in a dynamic environment (study 2).

Validity and Reliability of the Cycleops Hammer Cycle Ergometer

PURPOSE

To validate the new drive indoor trainer Hammer designed by Cycleops®.

METHODS

A total of 11 cyclists performed 44 randomized and counterbalanced graded exercise tests (100-500 W) at 70-, 85-, and 100-rpm cadences in seated and standing positions on 3 different Hammer units, while a scientific SRM system continuously recorded cadence and power output data.

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected between the 3 Hammer devices and the SRM for any workload, cadence, or pedaling condition (P value between 1.00 and .350), except for some minor differences (P = .03 and .04) found in the Hammer 1 at low workloads and for Hammer 2 and 3 at high workloads, all in seated position. Strong intraclass correlation coefficients were found between the power output values recorded by the Hammers and the SRM (≥.996; P = .001), independently from the cadence condition and seated position. Bland-Altman analysis revealed low bias (-5.5 to 3.8) and low SD of bias (2.5-5.3) for all testing conditions, except marginal values found for the Hammer 1 at high cadences and seated position (9.6 [6.6]). High absolute reliability values were detected for the 3 Hammers (150-500 W; coefficient of variation <1.2%; SEM <2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

This new Cycleops trainer is a valid and reliable device to drive and measure power output in cyclists, providing an alternative to larger and more expensive laboratory ergometers and allowing cyclists to use their own bicycles.

Considerations on the Assessment and Use of Cycling Performance Metrics and their Integration in the Athlete's Biological Passport

Over the past few decades the possibility to capture real-time data from road cyclists has drastically improved. Given the increasing pressure for improved transparency and openness, there has been an increase in publication of cyclists' physiological and performance data. Recently, it has been suggested that the use of such performance biometrics may be used to strengthen the sensitivity and applicability of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and aid in the fight against doping. This is an interesting concept which has merit, although there are several important factors that need to be considered. These factors include accuracy of the data collected and validity (and reliability) of the subsequent performance modeling. In order to guarantee high quality standards, the implementation of well-structured Quality-Systems within sporting organizations should be considered, and external certifications may be required. Various modeling techniques have been developed, many of which are based on fundamental intensity/time relationships. These models have increased our understanding of performance but are currently limited in their application, for example due to the largely unaccounted effects of environmental factors such as, heat and altitude. In conclusion, in order to use power data as a performance biometric to be integrated in the biological passport, a number of actions must be taken to ensure accuracy of the data and better understand road cycling performance in the field. This article aims to outline considerations in the quantification of cycling performance, also presenting an alternative method (i.e., monitoring race results) to allow for determination of unusual performance improvements.

Caffeine and Bicarbonate for Speed. A Meta-Analysis of Legal Supplements Potential for Improving Intense Endurance Exercise Performance

A 1% change in average speed is enough to affect medal rankings in intense Olympic endurance events lasting ~45 s to 8 min which for example includes 100 m swimming and 400 m running (~1 min), 1,500 m running and 4000 m track cycling (~4 min) and 2,000 m rowing (~6-8 min). To maximize the likelihood of winning, athletes utilizes legal supplements with or without scientifically documented beneficial effects on performance. Therefore, a continued systematic evidence based evaluation of the possible ergogenic effects is of high importance. A meta-analysis was conducted with a strict focus on closed-end performance tests in humans in the time domain from 45 s to 8 min. These test include time-trials or total work done in a given time. This selection criterion results in a high relevance for athletic performance. Only peer-reviewed placebo controlled studies were included. The often applied and potentially ergogenic supplements beta-alanine, bicarbonate, caffeine and nitrate were selected for analysis. Following a systematic search in Pubmed and SportsDiscuss combined with evaluation of cross references a total of 7 (beta-alanine), 25 (bicarbonate), 9 (caffeine), and 5 (nitrate) studies was included in the meta-analysis. For each study, performance was converted to an average speed (km/h) from which an effect size (ES; Cohens d with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated. A small effect and significant performance improvement relative to placebo was observed for caffeine (ES: 0.41 [0.15–0.68], P = 0.002) and bicarbonate (ES: 0.40 [0.27–0.54], P < 0.001). Trivial and non-significant effects on performance was observed for nitrate (ES: 0.19 [−0.03–0.40], P = 0.09) and beta-alanine (ES: 0.17 [−0.12–0.46], P = 0.24). Thus, caffeine's and bicarbonate's ergogenic effect is clearly documented for intense endurance performance. Importantly, for all supplements an individualized approach may improve the ergogenic effect on performance.

Knowledge is power: Issues of measuring training and performance in cycling

Mobile power meters provide a valid means of measuring cyclists' power output in the field. These field measurements can be performed with very good accuracy and reliability making the power meter a useful tool for monitoring and evaluating training and race demands. This review presents power meter data from a Grand Tour cyclist's training and racing and explores the inherent complications created by its stochastic nature. Simple summary methods cannot reflect a session's variable distribution of power output or indicate its likely metabolic stress. Binning power output data, into training zones for example, provides information on the detail but not the length of efforts within a session. An alternative approach is to track changes in cyclists' modelled training and racing performances. Both critical power and record power profiles have been used for monitoring training-induced changes in this manner. Due to the inadequacy of current methods, the review highlights the need for new methods to be established which quantify the effects of training loads and models their implications for performance.

Cerebral Regulation in Different Maximal Aerobic Exercise Modes

We investigated cerebral responses, simultaneously with peripheral and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) responses, during different VO_2MAX-matched aerobic exercise modes. Nine cyclists (VO_2MAX of 57.5 ± 6.2 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) performed a maximal, controlled-pace incremental test (MIT) and a self-paced 4 km time trial (TT_4km). Measures of cerebral (COX) and muscular (MOX) oxygenation were assessed throughout the exercises by changes in oxy- (O₂Hb) and deoxy-hemoglobin (HHb) concentrations over the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscle, respectively. Primary motor cortex (PMC) electroencephalography (EEG), VL, and rectus femoris EMG were also assessed throughout the trials, together with power output and cardiopulmonary responses. The RPE was obtained at regular intervals. Similar motor output (EMG and power output) occurred from 70% of the duration in MIT and TT_4km, despite the greater motor output, muscle deoxygenation (↓ MOX) and cardiopulmonary responses in TT_4km before that point. Regarding cerebral responses, there was a lower COX (↓ O₂Hb concentrations in PFC) at 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60%, but greater at 100% of the TT_4km duration when compared to MIT. The alpha wave EEG in PMC remained constant throughout the exercise modes, with greater values in TT_4km. The RPE was maximal at the endpoint in both exercises, but it increased slower in TT_4km than in MIT. Results showed that similar motor output and effort tolerance were attained at the closing stages of different VO_2MAX-matched aerobic exercises, although the different disturbance until that point. Regardless of different COX responses during most of the exercises duration, activation in PMC was preserved throughout the exercises, suggesting that these responses may be part of a centrally-coordinated exercise regulation.

Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling

The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory vs. outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session and 2 experimental trials consisting of 1 laboratory and 1 outdoor session, in a randomized order. Participants were given a standardized statement instructing them to give the same perceived effort for both the laboratory and outdoor 40-km trials. Variables measured include power output, heart rate (HR), core temperature, skin temperature, body weight, urine specific gravity (USG), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), attentional focus, and environmental conditions. Wind speed was higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0 m·s-1, p = 0.02) whereas all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs. 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and HR (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 b·min-1, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, whereas skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than during the laboratory trial (31.4 ± 0.3 vs. 33.0 ± 0.2° C, respectively, p < 0.001), thus creating a larger thermal gradient between the core and skin outdoors. No significant differences in body weight, USG, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than in laboratory cycling, despite similar environmental conditions and perceived exertion. In light of this, cyclists may want to ride at a higher perceived exertion in indoor settings to acquire the same benefit as they would from an outdoor ride.

Validity and reliability of the look Keo power pedal system for measuring power output during incremental and repeated sprint cycling

Power meters have traditionally been integrated into the crank set, but several manufacturers have designed new systems located elsewhere on the bike, such as inside the pedals.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Keo power pedals during several laboratory cycling tasks.

METHODS

Ten active male participants (mean ± SD age 34.0 ± 10.6 y, height 1.77 ± 0.04 m, body mass 76.5 ± 10.7 kg) familiar with laboratory cycling protocols completed this study. Each participant was required to complete 2 laboratory cycling trials on an SRM ergometer (SRM, Germany) that was also fitted with the Keo power pedals (Look, France). The trials consisted of an incremental test to exhaustion followed by 10 min rest and then three 10-s sprint tests separated by 3 min of cycling at 100 W.

RESULTS

Over power ranges of 75 to 1147 W, the Keo power-pedal system produced typical error values of 0.40, 0.21, and 0.21 for the incremental, sprint, and combined trials, respectively, compared with the SRM. Mean differences of 21.0 and 18.6 W were observed between trials 1 and 2 with the Keo system in the incremental and combined protocols, respectively. In contrast, the SRM produced differences of 1.3 and 0.6 W for the same protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

The power data from the Keo power pedals should be treated with some caution given the presence of mean differences between them and the SRM. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by poorer reliability than that of the SRM power meter.

The Tour de France: An Updated Physiological Review

From its initial inception in 1903 as a race premised on a publicity stunt to sell newspapers, the Tour de France had grown and evolved over time to become one of the most difficult and heralded sporting events in the world. Though sporting science and the Tour paralleled each other, it was not until the midlate 1980s, and especially the midlate 1990s (with the use of heart-rate monitors) that the 2 began to unify and grow together. The purpose of this brief review is to summarize what is currently known of the physiological demands of the Tour de France, as well as of the main physiological profile of Tour de France competitors.