Suppr超能文献

与Verve Cycling InfoCrank功率计相比,Velocomp PowerPod的有效性。

Validity of the Velocomp PowerPod Compared With the Verve Cycling InfoCrank Power Meter.

作者信息

Merkes Paul F J, Menaspà Paolo, Abbiss Chris R

出版信息

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Nov 1;14(10):1382-1387. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0790.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine the validity of the Velocomp PowerPod power meter in comparison with the Verve Cycling InfoCrank power meter.

METHODS

This research involved 2 separate studies. In study 1, 12 recreational male road cyclists completed 7 maximal cycling efforts of a known duration (2 times 5 s and 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 s). In study 2, 4 elite male road cyclists completed 13 outdoor cycling sessions. In both studies, power output of cyclists was continuously measured using both the PowerPod and InfoCrank power meters. Maximal mean power output was calculated for durations of 1, 5, 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 seconds plus the average power output in study 2.

RESULTS

Power output determined by the PowerPod was almost perfectly correlated with the InfoCrank (r > .996; P < .001) in both studies. Using a rolling resistance previously reported, power output was similar between power meters in study 1 (P = .989), but not in study 2 (P = .045). Rolling resistance estimated by the PowerPod was higher than what has been previously reported; this might have occurred because of errors in the subjective device setup. This overestimation of rolling resistance increased the power output readings.

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of rolling resistance seems to be very important in determining power output using the PowerPod. When using a rolling resistance based on previous literature, the PowerPod showed high validity when compared with the InfoCrank in a controlled field test (study 1) but less so in a dynamic environment (study 2).

摘要

目的

与Verve Cycling InfoCrank功率计相比,确定Velocomp PowerPod功率计的有效性。

方法

本研究包括2项独立研究。在研究1中,12名男性休闲公路自行车骑行者完成了7次已知时长的最大骑行努力(2次5秒以及15、30、60、240和600秒)。在研究2中,4名精英男性公路自行车骑行者完成了13次户外骑行训练。在两项研究中,均使用PowerPod和InfoCrank功率计持续测量骑行者的功率输出。计算了1、5、15、30、60、240和600秒时长的最大平均功率输出以及研究2中的平均功率输出。

结果

在两项研究中,PowerPod测定的功率输出与InfoCrank几乎完全相关(r>.996;P<.001)。使用先前报道的滚动阻力,研究1中功率计之间的功率输出相似(P=.989),但研究2中并非如此(P=.045)。PowerPod估计的滚动阻力高于先前报道的值;这可能是由于主观设备设置中的误差所致。滚动阻力的这种高估增加了功率输出读数。

结论

在使用PowerPod确定功率输出时,滚动阻力的准确性似乎非常重要。在对照现场测试(研究1)中,与InfoCrank相比,当使用基于先前文献的滚动阻力时,PowerPod显示出较高的有效性,但在动态环境(研究2)中则不然。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验