PURPOSE: The ErgomoPro (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). METHODS: 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: approximately 140 to 160 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: The ErgomoPro (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). METHODS: 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: approximately 140 to 160 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.
Authors: Flávio O Pires; Carlos A S Dos Anjos; Roberto J M Covolan; Fabiano A Pinheiro; Alan St Clair Gibson; Timothy D Noakes; Fernando H Magalhães; Carlos Ugrinowitsch Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 4.566