Validity and Reliability of the Stages Cycling Power Meter

Assessing Energy Availability and Glucose Dynamics in Adolescent Cyclists: Implications for Nutritional Interventions During the Competitive Season

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing a state of low energy availability (LEA) (<30 kcals/kg free-fat mass) in endurance athletes is known and recommendations for nutrition are available. However, information on male adolescent cyclists and the influence of hot temperatures is limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact on energy availability of two 4-day nutritional intervention strategies: (1) supplementary carbohydrate (CHO) intake during exercise and (2) designing and implementing individual nutritional interventions.

METHODS

Each intervention was preceded by a 4-day basal assessment. Eight competitive male junior road cyclists (aged 16-17 years) were investigated using a 4-day diet and activity records, alongside bioelectric impedance analysis. Their real-time power output, interstitial glucose, and temperature were recorded via sensors and a bike computer. Their energy intake (EI) was estimated from daily, self-reported food diaries.

RESULTS

Overall, 100% and 71% of the cyclists were in a state of LEA during the baseline assessment of the supplementary CHO and nutritional interventions, respectively. LEA prevalence, not modified by supplementary CHO intake alone (from 100% to 87%, ns), was markedly reduced by the individual nutritional intervention (from 71% to 14%, p < 0.05). When considering all the data as a whole, LEA was positively influenced by the training load (OR 1.06; 95% Cl 1.03 to 1.09) and free-fat mass (OR 1.46; 1.04 to 2.04) and was negatively affected by EI (OR 0.994; 0.991 to 0.997). A hot environment (air temperature) failed to influence the LEA or glucose dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

the nutritional intervention, but not the supplementary CHO intake, markedly reduced the prevalence of LEA in adolescents, who often fail to match their energy expenditure with their energy intake during the competitive season. Nutritional education is essential for adolescent endurance cycling teams.

Intensity Matters: Effect of Different Work-Matched Efforts on Subsequent Performance in Cyclists

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of 2 work-matched efforts of different intensities on subsequent performance in well-trained cyclists.

METHODS

The present study followed a randomized controlled crossover design. Twelve competitive junior cyclists volunteered to participate (age, 17 [1] y; maximum oxygen uptake, 71.0 [4.7] mL·kg-1·min-1). The power-duration relationship was assessed through 2-minute, 5-minute, and 12-minute field tests under fresh conditions (control). On subsequent days and following a randomized order, participants repeated the aforementioned tests after 2 training sessions matched for mechanical work (∼15 kJ/kg) of different intensities (ie, a moderate-intensity continuous-training [60%-70% of critical power; CP] session or a session including high-intensity intervals [3-min repetition bouts at 110%-120% of the CP interspersed by 3-min rest periods]).

RESULTS

A significantly lower power output was found in the 2-minute test after the high-intensity training session compared not only with the control condition (-8%, P < .001) but also with the moderate-intensity continuous-training session (-7%, P = .003), with no significant differences between the latter conditions. No significant differences between conditions were found for the remaining tests. As a consequence, the high-intensity training session resulted in significantly lower W' values compared to both the control condition (-27%, P = .001) and the moderate-intensity continuous-training session (-26%, P = .012), with no differences between the 2 latter conditions and with no differences for CP.

CONCLUSION

A session including high-intensity intermittent efforts induces a greater fatigue, particularly in short-duration efforts and W', than a work-matched continuous-training session of moderate intensity.

The Accuracy and Reliability of the Power Measurements of the TACX Neo 2T Smart Trainer and Its Agreement against the Garmin Vector 3 Pedals

The power output in cycling is one of the most important factors for athletes and coaches. The cycling community has several commercial gears that can be used. One of the most used is the TACX Neo 2T (TN2T) smart trainer. The objective of this study was to investigate the metrological proprieties of the TN2T (accuracy and reliability), as well as its agreement with the Garmin Vector 3 (GV3) pedals at different power stages. The sample consisted of ten regional-level cyclists with a mean age of 45.6 ± 6.4 years, who regularly participated in regional and national competitions. Residual relative differences were found between the two devices. Both devices showed good reliability with coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.03% to 0.15% and from 0.731 to 0.968, respectively. Independent samples t-test comparison between devices showed no significant differences in all power stages (p > 0.05). Bland-Altman plots showed that more than 80% of the plots were within the 95% confidence intervals in all power stages. The present data showed that there were non-significant differences between the two devices at power stages between 100 W and 270 W, with a strong agreement. Therefore, they can be used simultaneously.

The relationship between workload and exercise-induced cardiac troponin elevations is influenced by non-obstructive coronary atherosclerosis

The relationship between exercise-induced troponin elevation and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is unclear. This observational study assessed non-obstructive CAD's impact on exercise-induced cardiac Troponin I (cTnI) elevation in middle-aged recreational athletes. cTnI levels of 40 well-trained recreational athletes (73% males, 50 ± 9 years old) were assessed by a high-sensitive cTnI assay 24 h before, and at 3 and 24 h following two high-intensity exercises of different durations; a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), and a 91-km mountain bike race. Workload was measured with power meters. Coronary computed tomography angiography was used to determine the presence or absence of non-obstructive (<50% obstruction) CAD. A total of 15 individuals had non-obstructive CAD (Atherosclerotic group), whereas 25 had no atherosclerosis (normal). There were higher post-exercise cTnI levels following the race compared with CPET, both at 3 h (77.0 (35.3-112.4) ng/L vs. 11.6 (6.4-22.5) ng/L, p < 0.001) and at 24 h (14.7 (6.7-16.3) vs. 5.0 (2.6-8.9) ng/L, p < 0.001). Absolute cTnI values did not differ among groups. Still, the association of cTnI response to power output was significantly stronger in the CAD versus Normal group both at 3 h post-exercise (Rho = 0.80, p < 0.001 vs. Rho = -0.20, p = 0.33) and 24-h post-exercise (Rho = 0.87, p < 0.001 vs. Rho = -0.13, p = 0.55). Exercise-induced cTnI elevation was strongly correlated with exercise workload in middle-aged athletes with non-obstructive CAD but not in individuals without CAD. This finding suggests that CAD influences the relationship between exercise workload and the cTnI response even without coronary artery obstruction.

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling

The purpose was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of two portable powermeters (PowerTap vs. Power2Max) in different types of cycling efforts. Ten cyclists performed two submaximal, one incremental maximal and two supramaximal sprint tests on an ergometer, while pedaling power and cadence were registered by both powermeters and a cadence sensor (GarminGSC10). During the submaximal and incremental maximal tests, significant correlations were found for power and cadence data (r = 0.992-0.997 and 0.996-0.998, respectively, p < 0.001), with a slight power underestimation by PowerTap (0.7-1.8%, p < 0.01) and a high reliability of both powermeters (p < 0.001) for measurement of power (ICC = 0.926 and 0.936, respectively) and cadence (ICC = 0.969 and 0.970, respectively). However, during the supramaximal sprint test, their agreement to measure power and cadence was weak (r = 0.850 and -0.253, p < 0.05) due to the low reliability of the cadence measurements (ICC between 0.496 and 0.736, and 0.574 and 0.664, respectively; p < 0.05) in contrast to the high reliability of the cadence sensor (ICC = 0.987-0.994). In conclusion, both powermeters are valid and reliable for measuring power and cadence during continuous cycling efforts (~100-450 W), but questionable during sprint efforts (>500 W), where they are affected by the gear ratio used (PowerTap) and by their low accuracy in cadence recording (PowerTap and Power2Max).

Are Unilateral Devices Valid for Power Output Determination in Cycling? Insights From the Favero Assioma Power Meter

PURPOSE

Some power meters are available in both bilateral and unilateral versions. However, despite the popularity of the latter, their validity remains unknown. We aimed to analyze the validity of a unilateral pedal power meter for estimating actual ("bilateral") power output (PO).

METHODS

Thirty-three male cyclists were assessed at different POs (steady cycling at 100-500 W, as well as all-out sprints), pedaling cadences (70, 85, and 100 repetitions·min-1), and cycling positions (seated and standing). The PO estimated by a left-only power meter (Favero Assioma Uno) was compared with the actual PO computed by a bilateral power meter (Favero Assioma Duo), and the level of bilateral asymmetry (most- vs least-powerful leg) with the latter system was also computed.

RESULTS

Nonsignificant differences, high intraclass correlation coefficients (≥.90), and low coefficients of variation (consistently ≤5% except for low PO levels, ie, 5%-7% at 100 W) were found between Favero Assioma Uno and Favero Assioma Duo. However, although a strong intraclass correlation coefficient (.995) was found between both legs, asymmetry values of 4% to 6% were found for all conditions except when pedaling at the lowest PO (100 W), in which asymmetry increased up to 10% to 13%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cyclists tend to present some level of bilateral asymmetry during cycling (particularly at low PO), Favero Assioma Uno provides overall valid estimates of actual PO and is, therefore, an economical alternative to bilateral power meters. Caution is needed, however, when interpreting data at the individual level in cyclists with high levels of asymmetry.

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%).

Determinants of Interindividual Variation in Exercise-Induced Cardiac Troponin I Levels

Background Postexercise cardiac troponin levels show considerable interindividual variations. This study aimed to identify the major determinants of this postexercise variation in cardiac troponin I (cTnI) following 3 episodes of prolonged high-intensity endurance exercise. Methods and Results Study subjects were recruited among prior participants in a study of recreational cyclists completing a 91-km mountain bike race in either 2013 or 2014 (first race). In 2018, study participants completed a cardiopulmonary exercise test 2 to 3 weeks before renewed participation in the same race (second race). Blood was sampled before and at 3 and 24 hours following all exercises. Blood samples were analyzed using the same Abbot high-sensitivity cTnI STAT assay. Fifty-nine individuals (aged 50±9 years, 13 women) without cardiovascular disease were included. Troponin values were lowest before, highest at 3 hours, and declining at 24 hours. The largest cTnI difference was at 3 hours following exercise between the most (first race) (cTnI: 200 [87-300] ng/L) and the least strenuous exercise (cardiopulmonary exercise test) (cTnI: 12 [7-23] ng/L; P<0.001). The strongest correlation between troponin values at corresponding times was before exercise (r=0.92, P<0.0001). The strongest correlations at 3 hours were between the 2 races (r=0.72, P<0.001) and at 24 hours between the cardiopulmonary exercise test and the second race (r=0.83, P<0.001). Participants with the highest or lowest cTnI levels showed no differences in race performance or baseline echocardiographic parameters. Conclusions The variation in exercise-induced cTnI elevation is largely determined by a unique individual cTnI response that is dependent on the duration of high-intensity exercise and the timing of cTnI sampling. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166216.

Reproducibility of the Rotor 2INpower Crankset for Monitoring Cycling Power Output: A Comprehensive Analysis in Different Real-Context Situations

PURPOSE

To examine the reproducibility (intradevice and interdevice agreement) of the Rotor 2INpower device under a wide range of cycling conditions.

METHODS

Twelve highly trained male cyclists and triathletes completed 5 cycling tests, including graded exercise tests at different cadences (70-100 rpm), workloads (100-650 W), pedaling positions (seated and standing), and vibration conditions (20-40 Hz) and an 8-second maximal sprint (>1000 W). An intradevice analysis included a comparison between the power output registered by 3 units of Rotor 2INpower, whereas the power output provided by each one of these units and the gold-standard SRM crankset were compared for the interdevice analysis. Among others, statistical calculations included the standard error of measurement, expressed in absolute (in watts) and relative terms as the coefficient of variation (CV).

RESULTS

Except for the graded exercise test seated at 100 rpm/100 W (CV = 10.2%), the intradevice analysis showed an acceptable magnitude of error (CV ≤ 6.9%, standard error of measurement ≤ 12.3 W) between the 3 Rotor 2INpower. Similarly, these 3 units showed an acceptable agreement with the gold standard in all graded exercise test situations (CV ≤ 4.0%, standard error of measurement ≤ 13.1 W). On the other hand, both the intradevice and interdevice agreements proved to be slightly reduced under high cadences (intradevice: CV ≤ 10.2%; interdevice: CV ≤ 4.0%) and vibration (intradevice: CV ≤ 4.0%; interdevice: CV ≤ 3.6%), as well as during standing pedaling (intradevice: CV ≤ 4.1%; interdevice: CV ≤ 2.5%). Although within the limits of an acceptable agreement, measurement errors increased during the sprint tests (CV ≤ 7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, the Rotor 2INpower could be considered a reproducible tool to monitor power output in most cycling situations.

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 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.