Iglesias-Pino Javier, Herrero-Molleda Alba, Saavedra-García Miguel Ángel, García-López Juan
Human Movement and Sports Performance Analysis (AMRED), Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain.
Grupo de Investigación en Ciencias del Deporte (INCIDE), Departamento de Educación Física y Deportiva, Universidade da Coruña, 15179 A Coruña, Spain.
Sensors (Basel). 2023 Sep 7;23(18):7745. doi: 10.3390/s23187745.
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, < 0.001), with a slight power underestimation by PowerTap (0.7-1.8%, < 0.01) and a high reliability of both powermeters ( < 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, < 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; < 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).
目的是评估两款便携式功率计（PowerTap与Power2Max）在不同类型骑行运动中的同时效度和信度。十名自行车运动员在测力计上进行了两次次最大强度、一次递增最大强度和两次超最大强度冲刺测试，同时两款功率计和一个踏频传感器（佳明GSC10）记录踩踏功率和踏频。在次最大强度和递增最大强度测试期间，功率和踏频数据存在显著相关性（r分别为0.992 - 0.997和0.996 - 0.998，P < 0.001），PowerTap存在轻微的功率低估（0.7 - 1.8%，P < 0.01），两款功率计在测量功率（ICC分别为0.926和0.936）和踏频（ICC分别为0.969和0.970）方面具有较高的信度（P < 0.001）。然而，在超最大强度冲刺测试期间，由于踏频测量的信度较低（ICC分别在0.496至0.736以及0.574至0.664之间；P < 0.05），与踏频传感器的高信度（ICC = 0.987 - 0.994）相比，它们在测量功率和踏频方面的一致性较弱（r分别为0.850和 - 0.253，P < 0.05）。总之，两款功率计在连续骑行运动（约100 - 450瓦）期间测量功率和踏频是有效且可靠的，但在冲刺运动（>500瓦）期间存在问题，此时它们会受到所使用的传动比（PowerTap）以及踏频记录精度较低（PowerTap和Power2Max）的影响。
