scholarly journals Are the Assioma Favero Power Meter Pedals a Reliable Tool for Monitoring Cycling Power Output?

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 2789
Author(s):  
Víctor Rodríguez-Rielves ◽  
José Ramón Lillo-Beviá ◽  
Ángel Buendía-Romero ◽  
Alejandro Martínez-Cava ◽  
Alejandro Hernández-Belmonte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Cycle Ergometer ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Direct Drive ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
High Workload ◽  
Vibration Stress ◽  
40 Hz

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 (VO2max = 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.

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

Sensors ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 386
Author(s):  
Anthony Bouillod ◽  
Georges Soto-Romero ◽  
Frederic Grappe ◽  
William Bertucci ◽  
Emmanuel Brunet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Test ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Metrological Property ◽  
General Quality

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).

scholarly journals Mechanical Power in Endurance Running: A Scoping Review on Sensors for Power Output Estimation during Running

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (22) ◽  
pp. 6482
Author(s):  
Diego Jaén-Carrillo ◽  
Luis E. Roche-Seruendo ◽  
Antonio Cartón-Llorente ◽  
Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo ◽  
Felipe García-Pinillos
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Wearable Sensors ◽  
Mechanical Power ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Endurance Running ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Key Indicator ◽  
Kinematics Parameters

Mechanical power may act as a key indicator for physiological and mechanical changes during running. In this scoping review, we examine the current evidences about the use of power output (PW) during endurance running and the different commercially available wearable sensors to assess PW. The Boolean phrases endurance OR submaximal NOT sprint AND running OR runner AND power OR power meter, were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS. Nineteen studies were finally selected for analysis. The current evidence about critical power and both power-time and power-duration relationships in running allow to provide coaches and practitioners a new promising setting for PW quantification with the use of wearable sensors. Some studies have assessed the validity and reliability of different available wearables for both kinematics parameters and PW when running but running power meters need further research before a definitive conclusion regarding its validity and reliability.

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

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 6117
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Fiolo ◽  
Hai-Ying Lu ◽  
Chia-Hsiang Chen ◽  
Philip X. Fuchs ◽  
Wei-Han Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Linear Regression ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Tire Pressure ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Perfect Correlation ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Post Hoc

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, 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. 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%).

Validity and Reliability of the Look Keo Power Pedal System for Measuring Power Output During Incremental and Repeated Sprint Cycling

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Andy Sparks ◽  
Benjamin Dove ◽  
Craig A. Bridge ◽  
Adrian W. Midgley ◽  
Lars R. McNaughton
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Incremental Test ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Repeated Sprint ◽  
Typical Error ◽  
Sprint Cycling ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
The Look

Power meters have traditionally been integrated into the crank set, but several manufacturers have designed new systems located elsewhere on the bike, such as inside the pedals.Purpose:This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Keo power pedals during several laboratory cycling tasks.Methods:Ten active male participants (mean ± SD age 34.0 ± 10.6 y, height 1.77 ± 0.04 m, body mass 76.5 ± 10.7 kg) familiar with laboratory cycling protocols completed this study. Each participant was required to complete 2 laboratory cycling trials on an SRM ergometer (SRM, Germany) that was also fitted with the Keo power pedals (Look, France). The trials consisted of an incremental test to exhaustion followed by 10 min rest and then three 10-s sprint tests separated by 3 min of cycling at 100 W.Results:Over power ranges of 75 to 1147 W, the Keo power-pedal system produced typical error values of 0.40, 0.21, and 0.21 for the incremental, sprint, and combined trials, respectively, compared with the SRM. Mean differences of 21.0 and 18.6 W were observed between trials 1 and 2 with the Keo system in the incremental and combined protocols, respectively. In contrast, the SRM produced differences of 1.3 and 0.6 W for the same protocols.Conclusions:The power data from the Keo power pedals should be treated with some caution given the presence of mean differences between them and the SRM. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by poorer reliability than that of the SRM power meter.

Validity and Reliability of the Cycleops Hammer Cycle Ergometer

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 853-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
José R. Lillo-Bevia ◽  
Jesús G. Pallarés
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Cycle Ergometer ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Exercise Tests ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Graded Exercise ◽  
Marginal Values ◽  
Srm System

Purpose: To validate the new drive indoor trainer Hammer designed by Cycleops®. Methods: A total of 11 cyclists performed 44 randomized and counterbalanced graded exercise tests (100–500 W) at 70-, 85-, and 100-rpm cadences in seated and standing positions on 3 different Hammer units, while a scientific SRM system continuously recorded cadence and power output data. Results: No significant differences were detected between the 3 Hammer devices and the SRM for any workload, cadence, or pedaling condition (P value between 1.00 and .350), except for some minor differences (P = .03 and .04) found in the Hammer 1 at low workloads and for Hammer 2 and 3 at high workloads, all in seated position. Strong intraclass correlation coefficients were found between the power output values recorded by the Hammers and the SRM (≥.996; P = .001), independently from the cadence condition and seated position. Bland–Altman analysis revealed low bias (−5.5 to 3.8) and low SD of bias (2.5–5.3) for all testing conditions, except marginal values found for the Hammer 1 at high cadences and seated position (9.6 [6.6]). High absolute reliability values were detected for the 3 Hammers (150–500 W; coefficient of variation <1.2%; SEM <2.1). Conclusions: This new Cycleops trainer is a valid and reliable device to drive and measure power output in cyclists, providing an alternative to larger and more expensive laboratory ergometers and allowing cyclists to use their own bicycles.

Validity and Reliability of the Garmin Vector Power Meter in Laboratory and Field Cycling

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (06) ◽  
pp. 439-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Nimmerichter ◽  
Lukas Schnitzer ◽  
Bernhard Prinz ◽  
Dieter Simon ◽  
Klaus Wirth
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Field Conditions ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Typical Error ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sprint Cycling ◽  
S Peak

AbstractTo assess the validity and reliability of the Garmin Vector against the SRM power meter, 6 cyclists completed 3 continuous trials at power outputs from 100–300 W at 50–90 rev·min−1 and a 5-min time trial in laboratory and field conditions. In field conditions only, a 30-s sprint was performed. Data were compared with paired samples t-tests, with the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and the typical error. Reliability was calculated as the coefficient of variation (CV). There was no significant difference between the devices in power output in laboratory (p=0.245) and field conditions (p=0.312). 1-s peak power was significantly different between the devices (p=0.043). The LoA were ~1.0±5.0 W and ~0.5±0.5 rev·min−1 in both conditions. The LoA during the 30-s sprint was 6.3±38.9 W and for 1-s peak power it was 18.8±17.1 W. The typical error for power output was 2.9%, while during sprint cycling it was 7.4% for 30-s and 2.7% for 1-s peak power. For cadence, the typical error was below 1.0%. The mean CVs were ~1.0% and ~3.0% for the SRM and Garmin, respectively. These findings suggest, that the Garmin Vector is a valid alternative for training. However, during sprint cycling there is lower agreement with the SRM power meter. Both devices provide good reliability (CV<3.0%).

scholarly journals Validity and reproducibility of commercial cycling power meters in hot and cold environmental temperatures

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-39
Author(s):  
Robert Shute ◽  
Roksana Zak ◽  
Dustin Slivka
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Environmental Temperature ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Training Tool ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Temperature Environment ◽  
Different Temperatures ◽  
Environmental Temperatures

Power meters are a training tool used to help cyclists improve performance by objectively monitoring intensity.  Some power meters are well established and validated, whereas others are relatively new.  Most power meters have been tested for validity and reliability in laboratory and field settings of similar conditions; however, the reproducibility of these power meters across different temperatures has not been established. To examine the potential differences of the CompuTrainer, PowerTap, Stages, and Vector power meters in hot and cold compared to a room temperature environment. Recreationally trained male (n=7) and female (n=3) participants each completed three incremental cycling trials in hot (33°C), cold (7°C), or room temperature (RT, 20°C) conditions.  The power meters were placed on a standard road bicycle and power output was logged and recorded. The CompuTrainer was higher in the room temperature trial compared to the cold and the hot, but not between the hot and cold trial.  The PowerTap was not different in RT and cold, but was lower in hot compared to RT and compared to cold.  The Stages was not different between RT and cold, but was lower in the hot compared to RT and compared to cold.  The Vector was not different between RT and cold but was lower in the hot compared to RT and compared to cold.  These data indicate that environmental temperature may affect the reproducibility of power meters.  It is important to recognize the potential differences between temperatures when choosing a power meter.

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

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 2277
Author(s):  
Almudena Montalvo-Pérez ◽  
Lidia B. Alejo ◽  
Pedro L. Valenzuela ◽  
Mario Castellanos ◽  
Jaime Gil-Cabrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Coefficient Of Variation ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Srm System ◽  
External Loads ◽  
Strong Agreement

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.

scholarly journals 243 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF A CYCLE ERGOMETER PROTOCOL USING A RACING CYCLE AND INDOOR TRAINER

1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S43
Author(s):  
S. Svaren ◽  
J. Potteiger ◽  
D. Hopkins ◽  
B. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Cycle Ergometer ◽  
Validity And Reliability

Urdu Translation and Validation of Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 3505-3508
Author(s):  
Noor Ul Ain Fatima ◽  
Qurat-Ul- Ain ◽  
Fareeha Kausar ◽  
Mian Ali Raza ◽  
Misbah Waris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
A Value ◽  
Abc Scale ◽  
Translation And Validation

Objective: To translate and validate the ABC-Scale in Urdu language to predict risk of fall in older population. Study design: Cross-cultural Translation and validation Place and Duration: Study was conducted in older adult community of Sialkot from March 2020 to December 2020. Methodology: Translation of ABC in Urdu was conducted by using Beaton et al guidelines. Two bilingual translators translated the original version into Urdu language step wise, correction process was followed. Then two backward translations were done by language expert. After all this process, the translated version was reviewed by the professionals and the final version was applied on 15 individuals. Its reliability and validity was tested on 60 older adults. Results: For test re test reliability, intra class correlation coefficient ICC was measured with a value of 0.984 Which shows good test re-test reliability. The internal consistency and reliability of ABC was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha for total score with a value of 0.985. Content validity was good with values of CVI ranging from 0.767 to 0.955. To test the discriminative validity, independent t test was used to show the difference between the healthy and unhealthy adults. Factor analysis of UABC showed total variance 81.277 and cumulative variance was also 81.277. To calculate construct validity of U-ABC Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used and measured as 0.558. Conclusion: It was concluded that Urdu version of UABC is a valid assessment tool for older adults with fear of fall. It has good content validity, construct validity and reliability. Keywords: activities specific balance scale, validation, Urdu translation, reliability, tool translation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document