Cargando…

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling

The purpose was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of two portable powermeters (PowerTap vs. Power2Max) in different types of cycling efforts. Ten cyclists performed two submaximal, one incremental maximal and two supramaximal sprint tests on an ergometer, while pedaling power and cad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Iglesias-Pino, Javier, Herrero-Molleda, Alba, Saavedra-García, Miguel Ángel, García-López, Juan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10534882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37765802
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23187745
_version_ 1785112498823757824
author Iglesias-Pino, Javier
Herrero-Molleda, Alba
Saavedra-García, Miguel Ángel
García-López, Juan
author_facet Iglesias-Pino, Javier
Herrero-Molleda, Alba
Saavedra-García, Miguel Ángel
García-López, Juan
author_sort Iglesias-Pino, Javier
collection PubMed
description The purpose was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of two portable powermeters (PowerTap vs. Power2Max) in different types of cycling efforts. Ten cyclists performed two submaximal, one incremental maximal and two supramaximal sprint tests on an ergometer, while pedaling power and cadence were registered by both powermeters and a cadence sensor (GarminGSC10). During the submaximal and incremental maximal tests, significant correlations were found for power and cadence data (r = 0.992–0.997 and 0.996–0.998, respectively, p < 0.001), with a slight power underestimation by PowerTap (0.7–1.8%, p < 0.01) and a high reliability of both powermeters (p < 0.001) for measurement of power (ICC = 0.926 and 0.936, respectively) and cadence (ICC = 0.969 and 0.970, respectively). However, during the supramaximal sprint test, their agreement to measure power and cadence was weak (r = 0.850 and −0.253, p < 0.05) due to the low reliability of the cadence measurements (ICC between 0.496 and 0.736, and 0.574 and 0.664, respectively; p < 0.05) in contrast to the high reliability of the cadence sensor (ICC = 0.987–0.994). In conclusion, both powermeters are valid and reliable for measuring power and cadence during continuous cycling efforts (~100–450 W), but questionable during sprint efforts (>500 W), where they are affected by the gear ratio used (PowerTap) and by their low accuracy in cadence recording (PowerTap and Power2Max).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10534882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105348822023-09-29 Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling Iglesias-Pino, Javier Herrero-Molleda, Alba Saavedra-García, Miguel Ángel García-López, Juan Sensors (Basel) Article The purpose was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of two portable powermeters (PowerTap vs. Power2Max) in different types of cycling efforts. Ten cyclists performed two submaximal, one incremental maximal and two supramaximal sprint tests on an ergometer, while pedaling power and cadence were registered by both powermeters and a cadence sensor (GarminGSC10). During the submaximal and incremental maximal tests, significant correlations were found for power and cadence data (r = 0.992–0.997 and 0.996–0.998, respectively, p < 0.001), with a slight power underestimation by PowerTap (0.7–1.8%, p < 0.01) and a high reliability of both powermeters (p < 0.001) for measurement of power (ICC = 0.926 and 0.936, respectively) and cadence (ICC = 0.969 and 0.970, respectively). However, during the supramaximal sprint test, their agreement to measure power and cadence was weak (r = 0.850 and −0.253, p < 0.05) due to the low reliability of the cadence measurements (ICC between 0.496 and 0.736, and 0.574 and 0.664, respectively; p < 0.05) in contrast to the high reliability of the cadence sensor (ICC = 0.987–0.994). In conclusion, both powermeters are valid and reliable for measuring power and cadence during continuous cycling efforts (~100–450 W), but questionable during sprint efforts (>500 W), where they are affected by the gear ratio used (PowerTap) and by their low accuracy in cadence recording (PowerTap and Power2Max). MDPI 2023-09-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10534882/ /pubmed/37765802 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23187745 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Iglesias-Pino, Javier
Herrero-Molleda, Alba
Saavedra-García, Miguel Ángel
García-López, Juan
Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title_full Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title_fullStr Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title_full_unstemmed Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title_short Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
title_sort concurrent validity and reliability of two portable powermeters (power2max vs. powertap) to measure different types of efforts in cycling
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10534882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37765802
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23187745
work_keys_str_mv AT iglesiaspinojavier concurrentvalidityandreliabilityoftwoportablepowermeterspower2maxvspowertaptomeasuredifferenttypesofeffortsincycling
AT herreromolledaalba concurrentvalidityandreliabilityoftwoportablepowermeterspower2maxvspowertaptomeasuredifferenttypesofeffortsincycling
AT saavedragarciamiguelangel concurrentvalidityandreliabilityoftwoportablepowermeterspower2maxvspowertaptomeasuredifferenttypesofeffortsincycling
AT garcialopezjuan concurrentvalidityandreliabilityoftwoportablepowermeterspower2maxvspowertaptomeasuredifferenttypesofeffortsincycling