Validity and Reproducibility of the Garmin Vector Power Meter When Compared to the SRM Device

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).

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review

Bouillod

Soto-Romero

Grappe³

et al. 2022

Validity of the Favero Assioma Duo Power Pedal System for Measuring Power Output and Cadence

Montalvo-Pérez

Alejo

Castellanos

et al. 2021

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.

The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling

Fiolo

Chen

et al. 2021

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 (rs = 0.97, p < 0.001) and 1-min data (rs = 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, = 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. ICC3,1 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%).