Abstract
The use of mobile power measuring devices has become widespread within cycling, with a number of manufacturers now offering power measuring pedals. This study aimed to investigate the validity of PowerTap P1 pedals by comparing them with the previously validated Wattbike ergometer. Ten trained cyclists performed three simulated 10-mile (16-km) time trials on a Wattbike, while using PowerTap P1 pedals. There were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between PowerTap P1 pedals and a Wattbike for maximum, minimum, and mean power output, or for maximum, minimum, and mean cadence. There were good to excellent levels of agreement between the PowerTap P1 pedals and Wattbike (ICC > 0.8) for all measured variables except minimum cadence (ICC = 0.619). This suggests that PowerTap P1 pedals provide a valid measurement of power output.
Highlights
Laboratory-based testing must be conducted upon the assumption of accurate and reliable data collection
For the purpose of clarity, limits of agreement (LoA) results are reported in the format: Bias ± standard deviation (SD) (upper confidence interval (CI), lower CI), where the bias represents the mean difference between the measurement methods and the lower and upper confidence intervals were calculated as
It is important to note that Czajkowski et al [20] conducted both sub-maximal incremental test and sprint test protocols—in contrast to the simulated time trial used here—it would appear that there is a greater level of agreement between the Wattbike and PowerTap P1 pedals investigated in the current study than was reported between the PowerTap P1 pedals and the Schoberer Rad Messtechnik (SRM) by Czajkowski et al [20]
Summary
Laboratory-based testing must be conducted upon the assumption of accurate and reliable data collection. To this end, a number of cycle ergometers have been validated for use within laboratory settings, including the Wattbike (Wattbike Ltd., Nottingham, UK), which has been shown to be both valid and reliable across a range of testing protocols. Researchers have reported differences of up to 8% between indoor cycling performance and an equivalent outdoor event [8,9,10,11]. This would suggest that, despite the validity of the Wattbike, laboratory protocols do not accurately replicate “real-world” performance. It has become increasingly important to be able to measure power output during outdoor cycling events using a range of devices designed to be fitted to the athlete’s own bicycle rather than relying only on laboratory-based measures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
