Skip navigation
  •  Inicio
  • UDC 
    • Cómo depositar
    • Políticas do RUC
    • FAQ
    • Dereitos de Autor
    • Máis información en INFOguías UDC
  • Percorrer 
    • Comunidades
    • Buscar por:
    • Data de publicación
    • Autor
    • Título
    • Materia
  • Axuda
    • español
    • Gallegan
    • English
  • Acceder
  •  Galego 
    • Español
    • Galego
    • English
  
Ver ítem 
  •   RUC
  • Facultade de Ciencias do Deporte e a Educación Física
  • Investigación (CCDEF)
  • Ver ítem
  •   RUC
  • Facultade de Ciencias do Deporte e a Educación Física
  • Investigación (CCDEF)
  • Ver ítem
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

Thumbnail
Ver/abrir
Saavedra_García_Miguel_2023_Concurrent_validity_and_reliability__of_two_portable_powermeters.pdf (1.511Mb)
Use este enlace para citar
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/38451
Atribución 4.0 España
A non ser que se indique outra cousa, a licenza do ítem descríbese como Atribución 4.0 España
Coleccións
  • Investigación (CCDEF) [299]
Metadatos
Mostrar o rexistro completo do ítem
Título
Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Two Portable Powermeters (Power2Max vs. PowerTap) to Measure Different Types of Efforts in Cycling
Autor(es)
Saavedra-García, Miguel A.
Iglesias-Pino, Javier
Herrero Molleda, Alba
García-López, Juan
Data
2023-09-07
Resumo
[Abstract]: 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).
Palabras chave
Road cycling
Monitoring
Power output
Pedaling rate
 
Versión do editor
https://doi.org/10.3390/S23187745
Dereitos
Atribución 4.0 España
ISSN
1424-8220

Listar

Todo RUCComunidades e colecciónsPor data de publicaciónAutoresTítulosMateriasGrupo de InvestigaciónTitulaciónEsta colecciónPor data de publicaciónAutoresTítulosMateriasGrupo de InvestigaciónTitulación

A miña conta

AccederRexistro

Estatísticas

Ver Estatísticas de uso
Sherpa
OpenArchives
OAIster
Scholar Google
UNIVERSIDADE DA CORUÑA. Servizo de Biblioteca.    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2013 Duraspace - Suxestións