The SRM power measuring crank system is nowadays a popular device for cycling power output (PO) measurements in the field and in laboratories. The PowerTap (CycleOps, Madison, USA) is a more recent and less well-known device that allows mobile PO measurements of cycling via the rear wheel hub. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the PowerTap by comparing it with the most accurate (i.e. the scientific model) of the SRM system. The validity of the PowerTap is tested during i) sub-maximal incremental intensities (ranging from 100 to 420 W) on a treadmill with different pedalling cadences (45 to 120 rpm) and cycling positions (standing and seated) on different grades, ii) a continuous sub-maximal intensity lasting 30 min, iii) a maximal intensity (8-s sprint), and iiii) real road cycling. The reliability is assessed by repeating ten times the sub-maximal incremental and continuous tests. The results show a good validity of the PowerTap during sub-maximal intensities between 100 and 450 W (mean PO difference -1.2 +/- 1.3 %) when it is compared to the scientific SRM model, but less validity for the maximal PO during sprint exercise, where the validity appears to depend on the gear ratio. The reliability of the PowerTap during the sub-maximal intensities is similar to the scientific SRM model (the coefficient of variation is respectively 0.9 to 2.9 % and 0.7 to 2.1 % for PowerTap and SRM). The PowerTap must be considered as a suitable device for PO measurements during sub-maximal real road cycling and in sub-maximal laboratory tests.

Purpose:The Ergomo®Pro (EP) is a power meter that measures power output (PO) during outdoor and indoor cycling via 2 optoelectronic sensors located in the bottom bracket axis. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and the reproducibility of the EP compared with the SRM crank set and Powertap hub (PT).Method:The validity of the EP was tested in the laboratory during 8 submaximal incremental tests (PO: 100 to 400 W), eight 30-min submaximal constant-power tests (PO = 180 W), and 8 sprint tests (PO > 750 W) and in the field during 8 training sessions (time: 181 ± 73 min; PO: ~140 to 150 W). The reproducibility was assessed by calculating the coefficient of PO variation (CV) during the submaximal incremental and constant tests.Results:The EP provided a significantly higher PO than the SRM and PT during the submaximal incremental test: The mean PO differences were +6.3% ± 2.5% and +11.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. The difference was greater during field training sessions (+12.0% ± 5.7% and +16.5% ± 5.9%) but lower during sprint tests (+1.6% ± 2.5% and +3.2% ± 2.7%). The reproducibility of the EP is lower than those of the SRM and PT (CV = 4.1% ± 1.8%, 1.9% ± 0.4%, and 2.1% ± 0.8%, respectively).Conclusions:The EP power meter appears less valid and reliable than the SRM and PT systems.

Purpose:To describe the within-season external workloads of professional male road cyclists for optimal training prescription. Methods: Training and racing of 4 international competitive professional male cyclists (age 24 ± 2 y, body mass 77.6 ± 1.5 kg) were monitored for 12 mo before the world team-time-trial championships. Three within-season phases leading up to the team-time-trial world championships on September 20, 2015, were defined as phase 1 (Oct-Jan), phase 2 (Feb-May), and phase 3 (June-Sept). Distance and time were compared between training and racing days and over each of the various phases. Times spent in absolute (<100, 100-300, 400-500, >500 W) and relative (0-1.9, 2.0-4.9, 5.0-7.9, >8 W/kg) power zones were also compared for the whole season and between phases 1-3. Results: Total distance (3859 ± 959 vs 10911 ± 620 km) and time (240.5 ± 37.5 vs 337.5 ± 26 h) were lower (P < .01) in phase 1 than phase 2. Total distance decreased (P < .01) from phase 2 to phase 3 (10911 ± 620 vs 8411 ± 1399 km, respectively). Mean absolute (236 ± 12.1 vs 197 ± 3 W) and relative (3.1 ± 0 vs 2.5 ± 0 W/kg) power output were higher (P < .05) during racing than training, respectively. Conclusion: Volume and intensity differed between training and racing over each of 3 distinct within-season phases. Keywords: time trial, power output, SRM Powermeter, training loadUnderstanding the external workload demands of professional road cyclists is necessary to optimize training, reduce the risk of injury, and diagnose symptoms of overtraining. 1 The use of power meters during professional cycling races and training allows for multiple external load measurements to be instantaneously collected during a ride.Athletes and sports scientists commonly analyze these measurements to assess performance and to aid in their decision-making processes.The external workload in professional male cyclists has been previously described during road racing 2-6 and training. 7 While these studies add to a wealth of knowledge on external workload, the within-season distribution of workload during both training and racing is not well understood. Indeed, such research is limited to a detailed 50-week account of a world-class female triathlete in preparation for the Olympic-distance triathlon event. 8 Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the within-season distribution of external workload in 4 professional road cyclists throughout a cycling season and preparing for the world team-time-trial championships.

A number of laboratory-based performance tests have been designed to mimic the dynamic and stochastic nature of road cycling. However, the distribution of power output and thus physical demands of high-intensity surges performed to establish a breakaway during actual competitive road cycling are unclear. Review of data from professional road-cycling events has indicated that numerous short-duration (5–15 s), high-intensity (~9.5–14 W/kg) surges are typically observed in the 5–10 min before athletes’ establishing a breakaway (ie, riding away from a group of cyclists). After this initial high-intensity effort, power output declined but remained high (~450–500 W) for a further 30 s to 5 min, depending on race dynamics (ie, the response of the chase group). Due to the significant influence competitors have on pacing strategies, it is difficult for laboratory-based performance tests to precisely replicate this aspect of mass-start competitive road cycling. Further research examining the distribution of power output during competitive road racing is needed to refine laboratory-based simulated stochastic performance trials and better understand the factors important to the success of a breakaway.

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and the reliability of a stationary electromagnetically-braked cycle ergometer (Axiom PowerTrain) against the SRM power measuring crankset. Nineteen male competitive cyclists completed four tests on their bicycle equipped with a 20-strain gauges SRM crankset: a maximal aerobic power (MAP) test and three 10-min time trials (TTs) with three different simulated slopes (0, 3, and 6 %). The Axiom ergometer overestimated (p <0.05) the SRM power output during the last stage of the MAP test and during TTs, by 5 % and 12 %, respectively. Power output (PO) of the Axiom ergometer drifted significantly (p <0.05) with the time during TT. These findings indicate that the Axiom ergometer does not provide a valid measure of PO compared with SRM. However, the small coefficient of variation (2.2 %) during the MAP test indicates that the Axiom provides a reliable PO and that it can be used e.g. for relative PO comparisons with competitive cyclists during a race season.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of gear ratio (GR) and thus crank inertial load (CIL), on the activity levels of lower limb muscles. Twelve competitive cyclists performed three randomised trials with their own bicycle equipped with a SRM crankset and mounted on an Axiom ergometer. The power output ( approximately 80% of maximal aerobic power) and the pedalling cadence were kept constant for each subject across all trials but three different GR (low, medium and high) were indirectly obtained for each trial by altering the electromagnetic brake of the ergometer. The low, medium and high GR (mean +/- SD) resulted in CIL of 44 +/- 3.7, 84 +/- 6.5 and 152 +/- 17.9 kg.m(2), respectively. Muscular activity levels of the gluteus maximus (GM), the vastus medialis (VM), the vastus lateralis (VL), the rectus femoris (RF), the medial hamstrings (MHAM), the gastrocnemius (GAS) and the soleus (SOL) muscles were quantified and analysed by mean root mean square (RMS(mean)). The muscular activity levels of the measured lower limb muscles were not significantly affected when the CIL was increased approximately four fold. This suggests that muscular activity levels measured on different cycling ergometers (with different GR and flywheel inertia) can be compared among each other, as they are not influenced by CIL.

We compared the effects of (1) accurate and (2) surreptitiously augmented performance feedback on power output and physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in the heat. Nine cyclists completed a baseline (BaseL) 4000 m time-trial in ambient temperatures of 30°C, followed by two further 4000 m time-trials at the same temperature, randomly assigning the participants to an accurate (ACC; accurate feedback of baseline) or deceived (DEC; 2% increase above baseline) feedback group. The total power output (PO) and aerobic (Paer) and anaerobic (Pan) contributions were determined at 0.4 km stages during the time-trials, alongside measurements of rectal (Trec) and skin (Tskin) temperatures. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in any of the variables between BaseL, ACC and DEC, despite increases (P < 0.05) in Trec and Tskin. Typical pacing profiles were demonstrated; however, there was no interaction (P > 0.05) between feedback condition and time-trial stage. Providing surreptitiously augmented performance feedback to well-trained cyclists did not alter their performance or physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in a hot environment. The assumed influence of augmented performance feedback was nullified in the heat, perhaps reflecting a central down-regulation of exercise intensity in response to an increased body temperature.

Responses of twelve competitive cyclists performing an interval training session, consisting of three successive 10-min self-paced exercise bouts separated by two 15-min active recovery periods, were studied. Power output (PO), heart rate, pedaling cadence, ventilatory variables, overall ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris and medial hamstrings were recorded during each exercise bout. Mean PO (p<0.05) decreased significantly across the self-paced bouts, while RPE (p<0.01) increased significantly. PO and EMG activity did not show significant changes between the 3rd and 9th minute of each self-paced bout. Every self-paced bout showed an oxygen uptake (VO(2)) slow component between the 3rd and 9th minute and there was no effect of bout order on the magnitude of the VO(2) slow component. This study reveals that during an interval training session, moderately trained competitive cyclists are able to repeat three 10-min self-paced exercise bouts with only a slight decrease in PO (approximately 3%) and by maintaining unchanged physiological and neuromuscular responses. Moreover, the VO(2) slow component during each exercise bout was not related to changes in muscle activity, as every exercise bout was performed at a muscular work steady state with a constant PO.