The cycle ergometer test is not a reliable alternative to the countermovement jump in the assessment of power output.

Background: Rugby union is a physically demanding collision sport that requires optimal neuromuscular function for maximal power output, with mechanical power an integral component of performance. Peak power (P_p) and relative P_p are parameters of neuromuscular function commonly assessed through the countermovement jump (CMJ) as a measure of fatigue. The Wattbike cycle ergometer test (CET) is a non-load bearing method of evaluating lower limb power. The cost-effective CET could therefore offer a viable alternative to the CMJ.

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the concurrent validity of the CMJ and CET.

Methods: Thirty-eight professional rugby union players performed twelve CMJs on a force platform with four loads (bodyweight: BW-CMJ; 20kg: 20-CMJ; 40kg: 40-CMJ and 60kg: 60-CMJ) and a six second peak power (6PPO) CET assessment on a Wattbike ergometer.

Results: CMJ power outputs were [BW-CMJ: P_p - 3101±648 W; 20-CMJ: P_p - 2724±513 W; 40-CMJ: P_p - 2490±496 W; 60-CMJ: P_p - 2238±366 W] and CET [P_p - 1310±161 W]. None of the CMJ-P_p values showed relationships with any CET power variables. Large (r = 0.51-0.63; p = 0.000 - 0.001) relationships were found to be between relative CMJ and relative CET power outputs. Bland-Altman plots, which were used to determine the level of agreement between the two assessments, showed the agreement between the tests was poor.

Conclusion: Though positive relationships existed between relative CMJ and relative CET power variables, analyses of the level of agreement in the Bland-Altman plots suggest that the two power assessment methods are not interchangeable measures of power.