Reproducibility of peak power output during a 10-s cycling maximal effort using different sampling rates

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).

Reproducibility of estimated optimal peak output using a force-velocity test on a cycle ergometer

The current study aimed to examine the reproducibility of estimated peak power and estimated pedal velocity in a multi-trial 10-s all-out cycling test among adult athletes (n = 22; aged 23.50±4.73 years). Stature, sitting height and body mass were measured. Leg length was estimated as stature minus sitting height. Body volume was obtained from air displacement plethysmography and was subsequently used to calculate body density. Fat mass and fat-free mass were derived. The short-term power outputs were assessed from the force-velocity test (FVT), using a friction-braked ergometer on two separated occasions. Differences between repeated measurements were examined with paired t-test and effect sizes calculated. No significant differences were found between session 1 (898 W, 142 rpm) and session 2 (906 W, 142 rpm). Test-retest procedure showed acceptable reliability for estimated peak power output [technical error of measurement (TEM) = 31.9 W; % coefficient of variation (CV) = 3.5; intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.986] and pedal velocity (TEM = 5.4 rpm, %CV = 3.8, ICC = 0.924). The current study demonstrated a reasonable reproducibility of estimated peak power and pedal velocity outputs in non-elite male athletes and supports that a familiarization session including a complete FVT protocol is not required.