Vo2 requirement at different displayed power outputs on five cycle ergometer models: a preliminary study

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).

ARTP statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing 2021

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has become an invaluable tool in healthcare, improving the diagnosis of disease and the quality, efficacy, assessment and safety of treatment across a range of pathologies. CPET's superior ability to measure the global exercise response of the respiratory, cardiovascular and skeletal muscle systems simultaneously in a time and cost-efficient manner has led to the application of CPET in a range of settings from diagnosis of disease to preoperative assessment. The Association for Respiratory Technology and Physiology Statement on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing 2021 provides the practitioner and scientist with an outstanding resource to support and enhance practice, from equipment to testing to leadership, helping them deliver a quality assured service for the benefit of all patient groups.

Validity and Reliability of the Computrainer Lab™ During Simulated 40 and 100 km Time-Trials

The validity and reliability of the Computrainer Lab^™ (CT) was assessed, for the first time, using a high-precision motor-driven calibration rig during simulated variable intensity 40 and 100 km time-trials (TTs). The load patterns imposed by the CT were designed from previously published studies in trained cyclists and included multiple 1 or 4 km bursts in power output. For the 40 and 100 km TTs, cluster-based analyses revealed a mean measurement error from the true workload of respectively 0.7 and 0.9%. However, measurement errors were dependent upon the workload variations, fluctuating from 0.2 to 5.1%. Average biases between repeated trials were contained within ± 1.1% for both TTs. In conclusion, using 40 and 100 km TTs containing 1 or 4 km bursts in power output, the present results indicate that (1) the CT can reliably be used by scientists to determine differences between research interventions; (2) the CT provides valid results of power output when data are being analyzed as a whole to derive one mean value of power output and; (3) variations in workload make it difficult to determine at any one time the veracity of the true power output produced by the athlete.

Validity of the 3-Minute All-Out Exercise Test on the CompuTrainer

The 3-minute all-out exercise test (3MT) has emerged as a useful procedure for identifying critical power (CP) and the finite work capacity above CP (W') within a single visit. The CP concept enables for the prediction of exhaustive time limits (T(LIMs)) for a wide range of severe intensity power outputs and is a method for prescribing high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Road cyclists often use the CompuTrainer for indoor HIIT. The purpose of this study was to validate the 3MT for use on the CompuTrainer. On 4 separate visits, 10 competitive cyclists performed a 3MT, and three separate constant-load bouts projected to yield exhaustive T(LIMs) of 3, 6, and 9 minutes, respectively, using the Computrainer. Actual CP and W' were calculated using the linear work-time (W-t) and power-inverse time (1/t) models. The results for CP (W) from the 3MT (215 ± 40), the W-t model (212 ± 36), and the 1/t model (213 ± 36) did not differ (F = 2.96, p = 0.11, η2(p) = 0.43). Similarly, the results for W' (kJ) for the 3MT (11.2 ± 4.0), the W-t model (12.1 ± 6.5), and the 1/s model (11.7 ± 6.3) did not differ (F = 2.40, p = 0.15, η2(p) = 0.375). We conclude that use of the 3MT and the CP concept for performance assessment and HIIT prescription on the CompuTrainer is a valid procedure.

Energy expenditure of constant- and variable-intensity cycling: power meter estimates

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to compare the effects of constant- and variable-intensity cycling on gross efficiency (GE) and to compare estimates of energy expenditure (EE) made using indirect calorimetry (CAL) with estimates derived from commercially available power meters.

METHODS

Nine national team female road cyclists completed a GE test (GEtest = 4 min at approximately 45%, approximately 55%, approximately 65%, and approximately 75% maximal aerobic power (MAP)) before and after 10.5 min of either constant- (CON)- or variable- (VAR)-intensity cycling averaging approximately 55% MAP. GE measured before, after, and during CON and VAR cycling was compared. Total EE (kJ) for 10.5 min of VAR cycling was estimated using indirect CAL and compared with estimates on the basis of mechanical power [Schoberer Rad Messtechnik (SRM)] using the group mean GE, each athlete's mean GE, and each athlete's power to GE regression.

RESULTS

There was no effect of VAR on GEtests (P = 0.74). GE reduced from 19.1% ± 0.4% (mean ± SE) during the pretrial GEtests to 18.7% ± 0.4% during the posttrial GEtests (P < 0.05) in both conditions. Differences in GE (mean ± SD) measured during CON (18.4% ± 1.6%) and VAR cycling (18.6% ± 1.1%) were trivial (P = 0.28). SRM-based estimates of EE were most accurate when using individual athlete's power GE regression using Pre- and Post-VAR GEtest data combined (Δ(Equation is included in full-text article.)(%) ± 90% CI, 0.3 ± 0.8; R 0.98, P <0.001). Group mean estimates were within approximately 1% of CAL, although individual errors were approximately 11%.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the use of calibrated power meters for estimating cycling EE. For trained female road cyclists, total mechanical work (kJ) multiplied by 5.3 (GE = 19%) provides a valid estimation of total EE during variable-intensity cycling <75% MAP, although determining each athlete's GE improves accuracy greatly.