García-Pinillos Felipe, Latorre-Román Pedro Á, Roche-Seruendo Luis E, García-Ramos Amador
Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile.
University of Jaen, Department of Corporal Expression, Campus de Las Lagunillas s/n. D2 Building, Dep. 142., 23071, Jaen, Spain.
Gait Posture. 2019 Feb;68:238-243. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.11.037. Epub 2018 Nov 30.
The force- and power-velocity (F-V and P-V, respectively) relationships have been extensively studied in recent years. However, its use and application in endurance running events is limited.
This study aimed to determine if the P-V relationship in endurance runners fits a linear model when running at submaximal velocities, as well as to examine the feasibility of the "two-point method" for estimating power values at different running velocities.
Eighteen endurance runners performed, on a motorized treadmill, an incremental running protocol to exhaustion. Power output was obtained at each stage with the Stryd™ power meter. The P-V relationship was determined from a multiple-point method (10, 12, 14, and 17 km·h) as well as from three two-point methods based on proximal (10 and 12 km·h), intermediate (10 and 14 km·h) and distal (10 and 17 km·h) velocities.
The P-V relationship was highly linear ( r = 0.999). The ANOVAs revealed significant, although generally trivial (effect size < 0.20), differences between measured and estimated power values at all the velocities tested. Very high correlations ( r = 0.92) were observed between measured and estimated power values from the 4 methods, while only the multiple-point method ( r = 0.091) and two-point method distal ( r = 0.092) did not show heteroscedasticity of the error.
The two-point method based on distant velocities (i.e., 10 and 17 km·h) is able to provide power output with the same accuracy than the multiple-point method. Therefore, since the two-point method is quicker and less prone to fatigue, we recommend the assessment of power output under only two distant velocities to obtain an accurate estimation of power under a wide range of submaximal running velocities.
近年来，力与功率-速度（分别为F-V和P-V）关系已得到广泛研究。然而，其在耐力跑项目中的应用有限。
本研究旨在确定耐力跑运动员在亚最大速度跑步时，其P-V关系是否符合线性模型，同时检验“两点法”在估算不同跑步速度下功率值的可行性。
18名耐力跑运动员在电动跑步机上进行递增跑至疲劳的测试。在每个阶段使用Stryd™功率计获取功率输出。通过多点法（10、12、14和17千米·小时）以及基于近端速度（10和12千米·小时）、中间速度（10和14千米·小时）和远端速度（10和17千米·小时）的三种两点法确定P-V关系。
P-V关系呈高度线性（r = 0.999）。方差分析显示，在所有测试速度下，测量功率值与估算功率值之间存在显著差异，尽管通常差异较小（效应量<0.20）。4种方法的测量功率值与估算功率值之间观察到非常高的相关性（r = 0.92），而只有多点法（r = 0.091）和远端两点法（r = 0.092）未显示误差的异方差性。
基于远端速度（即10和17千米·小时）的两点法能够提供与多点法相同精度的功率输出。因此，由于两点法更快且更不易疲劳，我们建议仅在两个远端速度下评估功率输出，以在广泛的亚最大跑步速度范围内准确估算功率。
