Validity and Reliability of the Wattbike Cycle Ergometer

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer against the SRM Powermeter using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) and trained and untrained human participants. Using the CALRIG power outputs of 50-1 250  W were assessed at cadences of 70 and 90  rev x min(-1). Validity and reliability data were also obtained from 3 repeated trials in both trained and untrained populations. 4 work rates were used during each trial ranging from 50-300  W. CALRIG data demonstrated significant differences (P<0.05) between SRM and Wattbike across the work rates at both cadences. Significant differences existed in recorded power outputs from the SRM and Wattbike during steady state trials (power outputs 50-300  W) in both human populations (156±72  W vs. 153±64  W for SRM and Wattbike respectively; P<0.05). The reliability (CV) of the Wattbike in the untrained population was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8-13.2%) compared to 2.2% with the SRM (95%CI 1.5-4.1%). In the trained population the Wattbike CV was 2.6% (95%CI 1.8-5.1%) compared to 1.1% with the SRM (95%CI 0.7-2.0%). These results suggest that when compared to the SRM, the Wattbike has acceptable accuracy. Reliability data suggest coaches and cyclists may need to use some caution when using the Wattbike at low power outputs in a test-retest setting.

[1]  R. Withers,et al.  Dynamic calibration of mechanically, air- and electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers , 1998, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[2]  W G Hopkins,et al.  Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science , 2000, Sports medicine.

[3]  James C Martin,et al.  Validation of a Mathematical Model for Road Cycling Power. , 1998, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[4]  J. Wilmore,et al.  Mechanical and physiological calibration of four cycle ergometers. , 1982, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[5]  Louis Passfield,et al.  The dynamic calibration of bicycle power measuring cranks , 1998 .

[6]  David T. Martin,et al.  Accuracy of the Velotron Ergometer and SRM Power Meter , 2009, International journal of sports medicine.

[7]  G Atkinson,et al.  International Journal of Sports Medicine – Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research , 2009, International journal of sports medicine.

[8]  W G Hopkins,et al.  Reliability of Power in Physical Performance Tests , 2001, Sports medicine.

[9]  W G Hopkins,et al.  Tests of Cycling Performance , 2001, Sports medicine.

[10]  Shauna L. Stephens,et al.  Accuracy of SRM and power tap power monitoring systems for bicycling. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[11]  W G Hopkins,et al.  Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. , 1999, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[12]  J. Hopker,et al.  Validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter. , 2008, International journal of sports medicine.

[13]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[14]  Anthony J. Robinson,et al.  A static method for obtaining a calibration factor for SRM bicycle power cranks , 2005 .

[15]  J. D. Dale,et al.  Dynamic torquemeter calibration of bicycle ergometers. , 1986, Journal of applied physiology.

[16]  A. Nevill,et al.  Why the analysis of performance variables recorded on a ratio scale will invariably benefit from a log transformation. , 1997, Journal of sports sciences.

[17]  S Duc,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the PowerTap Mobile Cycling Powermeter when Compared with the SRM Device , 2005, International journal of sports medicine.

[18]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[19]  R. Davison,et al.  Peak power predicts performance power during an outdoor 16.1-km cycling time trial. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.