Accuracy of the Velotron Ergometer and SRM Power Meter

被引:77
作者
Abbiss, C. R. [1 ]
Quod, M. J. [2 ]
Levin, G. [1 ]
Martin, D. T. [2 ]
Laursen, P. B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Edith Cowan Univ, Sch Exercise Biomed & Hlth Sci, Perth, WA 6168, Australia
[2] Australian Inst Sport, Dept Physiol, Canberra, ACT, Australia
关键词
cycling; power; calibration; training; testing; MOBILE CYCLING POWERMETER; DYNAMIC CALIBRATION; VALIDITY; RELIABILITY; PERFORMANCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; PARAMETERS; DEVICE; OUTPUT; TESTS;
D O I
10.1055/s-0028-1103285
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter using a dynamic calibration rig over a range of exercise protocols commonly applied in laboratory settings. These trials included two sustained constant power trials (250 W and 414 W), two incremental power trials and three high-intensity interval power trials. To further compare the two systems, 15 subjects performed three dynamic 30 km performance time trials. The Velotron and SRM displayed accurate measurements of power during both constant power trials (<1% error). However, during high-intensity interval trials the Velotron and SRM were found to be less accurate (3.0%, CI = 1.6-4.5% and -2.6%, CI = -3.2- -2.0% error, respectively). During the dynamic 30 km time trials, power measured by the Velotron was 3.7 +/- 1.9% (CI = 2.9-4.8%) greater than that measured by the SRM. In conclusion, the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter appears to be dependent on the type of test being performed. Furthermore, as each power monitoring system measures power at various positions (i.e. bottom bracket vs. rear wheel), caution should be taken when comparing power across the two systems, particularly when power is variable.
引用
收藏
页码:107 / 112
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
ABBISS CR, 2007, INT J SPORTS MED
[2]   Mechanically braked Wingate powers: agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement [J].
Balmer, J ;
Bird, SR ;
Davison, RCR ;
Doherty, M ;
Smith, PM .
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2004, 22 (07) :661-667
[3]  
Balmer J, 2000, INT J SPORTS MED, V21, P195
[4]   Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device [J].
Bertucci, W ;
Duc, S ;
Villerius, V ;
Pernin, JN ;
Grappe, F .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2005, 26 (10) :868-873
[5]   Validity and reliability of the axiom powertrain cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter [J].
Bertucci, W ;
Duc, S ;
Villerius, V ;
Grappe, F .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2005, 26 (01) :59-65
[6]  
Earnest CP, 2005, J STRENGTH COND RES, V19, P344
[7]   Air-braked cycle ergometers: Validity of the correction factor for barometric pressure [J].
Finn, JP ;
Maxwell, BF ;
Withers, RT .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2000, 21 (07) :488-491
[8]   Accuracy of SRM and power tap power monitoring systems for bicycling [J].
Gardner, AS ;
Stephens, S ;
Martin, DT ;
Lawton, E ;
Lee, H ;
Jenkins, D .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2004, 36 (07) :1252-1258
[9]  
Jensen K, 1998, SCAND J MED SCI SPOR, V8, P1
[10]   Evaluation of the Monark Wingate Ergometer by direct measurement of resistance and velocity [J].
MacIntosh, BR ;
Bryan, SN ;
Rishaug, P ;
Norris, SR .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYSIOLOGIE APPLIQUEE, 2001, 26 (06) :543-558