Determining critical power and W′ in running: Accuracy of different two-point models using the power metric

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL
Santiago A Ruiz-Alias, Alberto A Ñancupil-Andrade, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Felipe García-Pinillos
{"title":"Determining critical power and <i>W′</i> in running: Accuracy of different two-point models using the power metric","authors":"Santiago A Ruiz-Alias, Alberto A Ñancupil-Andrade, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Felipe García-Pinillos","doi":"10.1177/17543371231200295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to determine the validity of the critical power (CP) and the work capacity over CP (W′) obtained from different two-time trial combinations with respect a five-point model. In a 3-week training period, 15 athletes (age: 23 ± 5 years; height: 166 ± 6 cm; body mass: 58 ± 8 kg; 5 km season-best: 15:29 ± 00:53 mm:ss) performed five time-trials (i.e. 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 min) on a 400 m track, from which the mean power outputs were obtained through the Stryd Power Meter. An acceptable level of agreement was considered if the following criteria were met: low bias and standard error of the estimate (SEE) (<14 W [values corresponding to the ±5% of the mean CP]; W′: <2.0 kJ [values corresponding to the ±10% of the mean W′]), R 2 > 0.90, and ICC > 0.81. The CP presented an acceptable SEE for CP work (1.3 ± 0.5%) and CP 1/time (2.7 ± 1.1%) when using the five time-trials. For both CP models, the 3–10 min was the shortest valid combination, whereas the 3–20, 4–20, and 5–20 min showed the greatest level of agreement. The W′ presented a high SEE for CP work (14.1 ± 5.2%) and CP 1/time (13.8 ± 6.2%) when using the five time-trials, therefore, none of the two time-trials combinations were considered. The CP parameter can be accurately estimated from different two time-trial combinations, whereas none reached an acceptable level of accuracy for the determination of W′.","PeriodicalId":20674,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17543371231200295","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to determine the validity of the critical power (CP) and the work capacity over CP (W′) obtained from different two-time trial combinations with respect a five-point model. In a 3-week training period, 15 athletes (age: 23 ± 5 years; height: 166 ± 6 cm; body mass: 58 ± 8 kg; 5 km season-best: 15:29 ± 00:53 mm:ss) performed five time-trials (i.e. 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 min) on a 400 m track, from which the mean power outputs were obtained through the Stryd Power Meter. An acceptable level of agreement was considered if the following criteria were met: low bias and standard error of the estimate (SEE) (<14 W [values corresponding to the ±5% of the mean CP]; W′: <2.0 kJ [values corresponding to the ±10% of the mean W′]), R 2 > 0.90, and ICC > 0.81. The CP presented an acceptable SEE for CP work (1.3 ± 0.5%) and CP 1/time (2.7 ± 1.1%) when using the five time-trials. For both CP models, the 3–10 min was the shortest valid combination, whereas the 3–20, 4–20, and 5–20 min showed the greatest level of agreement. The W′ presented a high SEE for CP work (14.1 ± 5.2%) and CP 1/time (13.8 ± 6.2%) when using the five time-trials, therefore, none of the two time-trials combinations were considered. The CP parameter can be accurately estimated from different two time-trial combinations, whereas none reached an acceptable level of accuracy for the determination of W′.
确定运行中的临界功率和W ':使用功率度量的不同两点模型的准确性
本研究的目的是在一个五点模型中,确定由不同的两次试验组合得到的临界功率(CP)和工作能力(W’)的有效性。在为期3周的训练中,15名运动员(年龄:23±5岁;高度:166±6cm;体重:58±8kg;5公里季节最佳:15:29±00:53毫米:秒)在400米赛道上进行了5次计时赛(即3、4、5、10、20分钟),通过Stryd功率计获得了平均功率输出。如果满足以下标准,则认为符合可接受的一致性水平:估计偏差低,标准误差(SEE) (<14 W[值对应于平均CP的±5%];W ': <2.0 kJ[对应于W '平均值的±10%的值]),R 2 >0.90, ICC >0.81. 使用五种时间试验时,CP的工作SEE值为1.3±0.5%,CP 1/时间SEE值为2.7±1.1%。对于两种CP模型,3-10 min是最短的有效组合,而3-20、4-20和5-20 min表现出最大的一致性。当使用5种时间试验时,W′对CP工作(14.1±5.2%)和CP 1/时间(13.8±6.2%)的SEE值较高,因此不考虑两种时间试验组合。CP参数可以从不同的两种时间试验组合中准确估计,但没有一种方法达到可接受的W '测定精度水平。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology covers the development of novel sports apparel, footwear, and equipment; and the materials, instrumentation, and processes that make advances in sports possible.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信