Dept of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015 Jan;10(1):39-45. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0317. Epub 2014 May 29.
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.
This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Keo power pedals during several laboratory cycling tasks.
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.
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.
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.
功率计传统上集成在曲柄组中，但有几家制造商设计了新的系统，将其放置在自行车的其他位置，如脚踏内部。
本研究旨在确定 Keo 功率脚踏在几项实验室骑行任务中的有效性和可靠性。
10 名活跃的男性参与者（平均年龄±标准差为 34.0±10.6 岁，身高 1.77±0.04 米，体重 76.5±10.7 公斤）熟悉实验室骑行方案，完成了这项研究。每位参与者都需要在配备 Keo 功率脚踏（法国 Look）的 SRM 测功计（德国）上完成 2 次实验室骑行试验。试验包括递增至力竭测试，随后休息 10 分钟，然后进行 3 次 10 秒冲刺测试，每次冲刺测试之间间隔 3 分钟，以 100 W 的功率骑行。
在 75 到 1147 W 的功率范围内，与 SRM 相比，Keo 功率脚踏系统在递增、冲刺和组合试验中分别产生了典型的 0.40、0.21 和 0.21 的误差值。在递增和组合协议中，分别观察到脚踏系统在第 1 次和第 2 次试验之间的平均差异为 21.0 和 18.6 W。相比之下，SRM 在相同的协议中产生了 1.3 和 0.6 W 的差异。
鉴于 Keo 功率脚踏与 SRM 之间存在平均差异，并且可靠性不如 SRM 功率计，因此应该谨慎对待其功率数据。此外，这一情况因脚踏的可靠性比 SRM 差而加剧。
