Power or speed: Which metric is more accurate for modelling endurance running performance on track?

Santiago A. Ruiz-Alias, Alberto A. Ñancupil-Andrade, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Felipe García-Pinillos
{"title":"Power or speed: Which metric is more accurate for modelling endurance running performance on track?","authors":"Santiago A. Ruiz-Alias,&nbsp;Alberto A. Ñancupil-Andrade,&nbsp;Alejandro Pérez-Castilla,&nbsp;Felipe García-Pinillos","doi":"10.1002/ejsc.12210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the power output, measured by a power meter, with respect to the speed, measured by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sport watch to determine the critical power (CP) and speed (CS), work over CP (W') and CS (D'), and long-duration performance (i.e., 60 min). Fifteen highly trained athletes randomly performed seven time trials on a 400 m track. The CP/CS and W'/D' were defined through the inverse of time model using the 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 min trials. The 60 min performance was estimated through the power law model using the 1, 3, and 10 min trials and compared with the actual performance. A lower standard error of the estimate was obtained when using the power meter (CP: 2.7 [2.1–3.3] % and W': 13.8 [10.4–17.3] %) compared to the speed reported by the IMU (CS: 3.4 [2.5–4.3] %) and D': 20.7 [16.6–24.7] %) and GNSS sport watch (CS: 3.4 [2.5–4.3] % and D': 20.6 [16.7–24.7] %). A lower coefficient of variation was also observed for the power meter (4.9 [3.7–6.1] %) Regarding the speed reported by the IMU (10.9 [7.1–14.8] %) and GNSS sport watch (10.9 [7.0–14.7] %) in the 60 min performance estimation, the power meter offered lower errors than the IMU and GNSS sport watch for modelling endurance performance on the track.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsc.12210","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the power output, measured by a power meter, with respect to the speed, measured by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sport watch to determine the critical power (CP) and speed (CS), work over CP (W') and CS (D'), and long-duration performance (i.e., 60 min). Fifteen highly trained athletes randomly performed seven time trials on a 400 m track. The CP/CS and W'/D' were defined through the inverse of time model using the 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 min trials. The 60 min performance was estimated through the power law model using the 1, 3, and 10 min trials and compared with the actual performance. A lower standard error of the estimate was obtained when using the power meter (CP: 2.7 [2.1–3.3] % and W': 13.8 [10.4–17.3] %) compared to the speed reported by the IMU (CS: 3.4 [2.5–4.3] %) and D': 20.7 [16.6–24.7] %) and GNSS sport watch (CS: 3.4 [2.5–4.3] % and D': 20.6 [16.7–24.7] %). A lower coefficient of variation was also observed for the power meter (4.9 [3.7–6.1] %) Regarding the speed reported by the IMU (10.9 [7.1–14.8] %) and GNSS sport watch (10.9 [7.0–14.7] %) in the 60 min performance estimation, the power meter offered lower errors than the IMU and GNSS sport watch for modelling endurance performance on the track.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
功率还是速度:哪种指标更适合模拟赛道上的耐力跑成绩?
本研究旨在比较功率计测量的输出功率与惯性测量单元(IMU)和全球导航卫星系统(GNSS)运动手表测量的速度之间的准确性,以确定临界功率(CP)和速度(CS)、CP 上的功耗(W')和 CS 上的功耗(D')以及长时间(即 60 分钟)的表现。15 名训练有素的运动员在 400 米跑道上随机进行了 7 次计时赛。CP/CS和W'/D'是通过时间反比模型,利用3、4、5、10和20分钟的试验确定的。通过幂律模型,利用 1、3 和 10 分钟的试验估算出 60 分钟的成绩,并与实际成绩进行比较。使用功率计(CP:2.7 [2.1-3.3] % 和 W':13.8 [10.4-17.3] %)估算的标准误差低于 IMU 报告的速度(CS:3.4 [2.5-4.3] % 和 D':20.7 [16.6-24.3] %):20.7 [16.6-24.7] %)和全球导航卫星系统运动手表(CS:3.4 [2.5-4.3] % 和 D':20.6 [16.7-24.7] %)报告的速度相比。关于 60 分钟成绩估算中 IMU(10.9 [7.1-14.8] %)和 GNSS 运动手表(10.9 [7.0-14.7] %)报告的速度,在模拟赛道耐力成绩方面,功率计的误差低于 IMU 和 GNSS 运动手表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women's rugby as a catalyst for advancing female-specific science and safety in sport. Case study of a world hour record simulation in an elite cyclist: Insight into task failure. Psychological and social factors associated with mental health of European dual career athletes: A systematic review. The effectiveness of cryostimulation exposure on sleep and recovery in male athletes: Timing considerations. The effects of plyometric versus resistance training on running economy and 5-km running time in middle-aged recreational runners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1