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

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%).

Are the Assioma Favero Power Meter Pedals a Reliable Tool for Monitoring Cycling Power Output?

This study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the recently developed Assioma Favero pedals under laboratory cycling conditions. In total, 12 well-trained male cyclists and triathletes (VO_2max = 65.7 ± 8.7 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) completed five cycling tests including graded exercises tests (GXT) at different cadences (70–100 revolutions per minute, rpm), workloads (100–650 Watts, W), pedaling positions (seated and standing), vibration stress (20–40 Hz), and an 8-s maximal sprint. Tests were completed using a calibrated direct drive indoor trainer for the standing, seated, and vibration GXTs, and a friction belt cycle ergometer for the high-workload step protocol. Power output (PO) and cadence were collected from three different brand, new pedal units against the gold-standard SRM crankset. The three units of the Assioma Favero exhibited very high within-test reliability and an extremely high agreement between 100 and 250 W, compared to the gold standard (Standard Error of Measurement, SEM from 2.3–6.4 W). Greater PO produced a significant underestimating trend (p < 0.05, Effect size, ES ≥ 0.22), with pedals showing systematically lower PO than SRM (1–3%) but producing low bias for all GXT tests and conditions (1.5–7.4 W). Furthermore, vibrations ≥ 30 Hz significantly increased the differences up to 4% (p < 0.05, ES ≥ 0.24), whereas peak and mean PO differed importantly between devices during the sprints (p < 0.03, ES ≥ 0.39). These results demonstrate that the Assioma Favero power meter pedals provide trustworthy PO readings from 100 to 650 W, in either seated or standing positions, with vibrations between 20 and 40 Hz at cadences of 70, 85, and 100 rpm, or even at a free chosen cadence.

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.

Using Field Based Data to Model Sprint Track Cycling Performance

Cycling performance models are used to study rider and sport characteristics to better understand performance determinants and optimise competition outcomes. Performance requirements cover the demands of competition a cyclist may encounter, whilst rider attributes are physical, technical and psychological characteristics contributing to performance. Several current models of endurance-cycling enhance understanding of performance in road cycling and track endurance, relying on a supply and demand perspective. However, they have yet to be developed for sprint-cycling, with current athlete preparation, instead relying on measures of peak-power, speed and strength to assess performance and guide training. Peak-power models do not adequately explain the demands of actual competition in events over 15-60 s, let alone, in World-Championship sprint cycling events comprising several rounds to medal finals. Whilst there are no descriptive studies of track-sprint cycling events, we present data from physiological interventions using track cycling and repeated sprint exercise research in multiple sports, to elucidate the demands of performance requiring several maximal sprints over a competition. This review will show physiological and power meter data, illustrating the role of all energy pathways in sprint performance. This understanding highlights the need to focus on the capacity required for a given race and over an event, and therefore the recovery needed for each subsequent race, within and between races, and how optimal pacing can be used to enhance performance. We propose a shift in sprint-cyclist preparation away from training just for peak power, to a more comprehensive model of the actual event demands.

Power Assessment in Road Cycling: A Narrative Review

Nowadays, the evaluation of physiological characteristics and training load quantification in road cycling is frequently performed through power meter data analyses, but the scientific evidence behind this tool is scarce and often contradictory. The aim of this paper is to review the literature related to power profiling, functional threshold testing, and performance assessment based on power meter data. A literature search was conducted following preferred reporting items for review statement (PRISMA) on the topic of {“cyclist” OR “cycling” AND “functional threshold” OR “power meter”}. The reviewed evidence provided important insights regarding power meter-based training: (a) functional threshold testing is closely related to laboratory markers of steady state; (b) the 20-min protocol represents the most researched option for functional threshold testing, although shorter durations may be used if verified on an individual basis; (c) power profiling obtained through the recovery of recorded power outputs allows the categorization and assessment of the cyclist’s fitness level; and (d) power meters represent an alternative to laboratory tests for the assessment of the relationship between power output and cadence. This review elucidates the increasing amount of studies related to power profiling, functional threshold testing, and performance assessment based on power meter data, highlighting the opportunity for the expanding knowledge that power meters have brought in the road cycling field.

The Reliability and Validity of the PowerTap P1 Power Pedals Before and After 100 Hours of Use

PURPOSE

To (1) evaluate agreement between the PowerTap P1 (P1) pedals and the Lode Excalibur Sport cycle ergometer, (2) investigate the reliability of the P1 pedals between repeated testing sessions, and (3) compare the reliability and validity of the P1 pedals before (P1₀) and after (P1₁₀₀) ∼100 h of use.

METHODS

Ten participants completed four 5-min submaximal cycling bouts (100, 150, 200, and 250 W), a 2-min time trial, and two 10-s all-out sprints on 2 occasions. This protocol was repeated after 15 mo and ∼100 h of use.

RESULTS

Significant differences were seen between the P1₀ pedals and the Lode Excalibur Sport at 100 W (P = .006), 150 W (P = .006), 200 W (P = .001), and 250 W (P = .006) and during the all-out sprints (P = .020). After ∼100 h of use, the P1₁₀₀ pedals did not significantly differ from the Lode Excalibur Sport at 100 W (P = .799), 150 W (P = .183), 200 W (P = .289), and 250 W (P = .183), during the 2-min time trial (P = .583), or during the all-out sprints (P = .412). The coefficients of variation for the P1₀ and P1₁₀₀ ranged from 0.6% to 1.3% and 0.5% to 2.0%, respectively, during the submaximal cycling bouts.

CONCLUSION

The P1 pedals provide valid data after ∼100 h of laboratory use. Furthermore, the pedals provide reliable data during submaximal cycling, even after prolonged use.