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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |