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

Field- and Laboratory-derived Power-Cadence Profiles in World-Class and Elite Track Sprint Cyclists

Previous investigations comparing Torque-Cadence (T-C) and Power-Cadence (P-C) profiles derived from seated and standing positions and field and laboratory conditions are not congruent with current methodological recommendations. Consequently, the aim of this investigation was to compare seated and standing T-C and P-C profiles generated from field and laboratory testing. Thirteen world-class and elite track sprint cyclists (n = 7 males, maximal power output (Pmax) = 2112 ± 395 W; n = 6 females, Pmax = 1223 ± 102 W) completed two testing sessions in which field- and laboratory-derived T-C and P-C profiles were identified. Standing P-C profiles had significantly (p < 0.05) greater Pmax than seated profiles, however there were no significant differences in optimal cadence (Fopt) between seated and standing positions. Pmax and Fopt were significantly lower in field-derived profiles in both positions compared to laboratory-derived profiles. However, there was no significant difference in the goodness-of-fit (R2) of the P-C profiles between laboratory (0.985 ± 0.02) and field-testing (0.982 ± 0.02) in each position. Valid T-C and P-C profiles can be constructed from field and laboratory protocols; however, the mechanical variables derived from the seated and standing and field and laboratory profiles cannot be used interchangeably. Both field and laboratory-derived profiles provide meaningful information and provide complementary insights into cyclists' capacity to produce power output.

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).