Validity, Sensitivity, Reproducibility, and Robustness of the PowerTap, Stages, and Garmin Vector Power Meters in Comparison With the SRM Device

Abstract

The PWT, STG, and VCT systems appear to be reproducible, but the validity, sensitivity, and robustness of the STG and VCT systems should be treated with some caution according to the conditions of measurement.

Adding vibration to high‐intensity intervals increase time at high oxygen uptake in well‐trained cyclists

“…In order to monitor the power output during both HIT sessions, the bike was equipped with a PowerTap SL 2.4 power meter (CycleOps, Madison, USA) mounted on the rear wheel. The PowerTap device is a valid and reliable power meter during both vibration and no‐vibration conditions . In order to give resistance to the back wheel, the bike was connected to a Computrainer LabTM electromagnetically braked ergometer (Race Mate, Seattle, WA, USA), calibrated according to the manufacturer's specifications, which was attached to a vibration plate (Pneu‐Vibe Pro; Pneumex, Inc. Sandpoint, ID, USA).…”

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

“…Novak and Dascombe [6] studied 21 male cyclists and while there were large variances for 5 second maximal effort sprints, similar to our results no significant differences were found. However, Bouillod et al [7] found significantly lower power output for the VPM in the 53/19 gear ratio. Over a variety of maximal effort sprints between 5 and 600 seconds, Novak and Dascombe [6] found the VPM overestimated power output.…”

“…This difference may be due to the maximal effort versus constant effort testing protocols. Bouillod et al [7] did not find significant differences during constant power tests, but used a cycling treadmill versus more traditionally accepted cycling trainers and varied wattages by adding weight via water bottles to the cyclist's bicycle.…”

“…In contrast to other studies [6][7] with self-selected gearing, our methods included traditionally used cycling ergometers as well as a three-hour field test. The reproducibility of the VPM was lower than the SRM (CV = 8.52 ± 4.0 vs 3.48 ± 1.9, 10.66% vs 5.50%, and 67.7% vs 55.3% for the submaximal incremental test, the submaximal constant power test, and the field test respectively).…”

“…To our knowledge, the VPM has only been tested for its validity and reproducibility in less traditional settings without extensive field testing [6,7]. Thus, this study was done to determine the validity and reproducibility of the VPM by comparing it to the SRM on more traditional methods using a stationary ergometer.…”