Elsevier

Physiology & Behavior

Volume 223, 1 September 2020, 112972
Physiology & Behavior

Running power meters and theoretical models based on laws of physics: Effects of environments and running conditions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.112972Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Theoretical power models, based on laws of physics, would represent interesting proposals to examine the sensitivity of running power devices.

  • Running power output estimated by commercial technologies are particularly influenced by environment (indoor vs. outdoor) and running conditions (body weight, slope and running speed).

  • The PolarV, and above all the Stryd device, are the most sensitive technologies for running power measurement in different environments and running conditions.

Abstract

Training prescription and load monitoring in running activities have benefited from power output (PW) data offered by new technologies. Nevertheless, to date, the sensitivity of PW data provided by these tools is still not completely clear. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of agreement between the PW estimated by five commercial technologies and the two main internationally theoretical models based on laws of physics, in different environments and running conditions. Ten endurance-trained male athletes performed three submaximal running protocols on a treadmill (indoor) and an athletic track (outdoor), with changes in speed, body weight, and slope. PW was simultaneously registered by the commercial technologies Stryd (StrydApp and StrydWatch), RunScribe, GarminRP and PolarV, whereas theoretical power output (TPW) was calculated by the two mathematical models (TPW1 and TPW2). Statistics included, among others, the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and standard error of measurement (SEM). The PolarV, and above all Stryd, showed the closest agreement with the TPW1 (Stryd: r ≥ 0.947, SEM ≤ 11 W; PolarV: r ≥ 0.931, SEM ≤ 64 W) and TPW2 (Stryd: r ≥ 0.933, SEM ≤ 60 W; PolarV: r ≥ 0.932, SEM ≤ 24 W), both indoors and outdoors. On the other hand, the devices GarminRP (r ≤ 0.765, SEM ≥ 59 W) and RunScribe. (r ≤ 0.508, SEM ≥ 125 W) showed the lowest agreement with the TPW1 and TPW2 models for all conditions and environments analyzed. The closest agreement of the Stryd and PolarV technologies with the TPW1 and TPW2 models suggest these tools as the most sensitive, among those analyzed, for PW measurement when changing environments and running conditions.

Introduction

Power output (PW) is a variable widely used for training prescription and load monitoring [1]. Due to the large advantages of this parameter, new emerging technologies and devices have been developed in order to measure PW in different sports, such as cycling or running. In cycling, PW can be measured by registering directly the force applied in different parts of the bike [2]. In running activities, new emerging devices use information from the global satellite system (outdoor conditions), or from inertial sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes (indoor conditions), for estimating the PW and other kinematics parameters [3], [4], [5].

Despite the fact that these running devices have led to an important advance for daily training [1,6], the accuracy of their data is still questioned. This accuracy is commonly analyzed by comparing the level of agreement between the PW given by a new device and a tool which is taken as the gold standard or criterion reference [7,8]. However, unlike in cycling, where the SRM® power meter has been widely used as a reference device [9,10], a gold standard for analyzing PW estimated during running activities is not easily available. Different studies have used tools such as the OptoGait system [4] or a 3D motion capture system [11] for validating kinematic parameters estimated by these commercial devices, such as the contact and flight time or the stride’ length and frequency [4,11]. Other recent studies [12] have examined the repeatability and concurrent validity of some of these running power meters, but to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet analyzed the agreement between running PW estimated by these new emerging technologies and a reference criterion.

PW in running activities can be influenced by factors such as the speed, body weight and height, air and climb resistance [13,14]. Due to the difficulty in analyzing all these factors using force platforms (commonly used as gold standard), several theoretical power outputs (TPW) based on mathematical models have emerged in the last decade [15,16]. Nevertheless, none of them have completely modeled all the aforementioned running conditions. On this matter, the Dijk and Megen [13] model (TPW1), as well as the proposal of Skiba [14] (TPW2), have been suggested in order to try to solve these limitations. Both models, based on laws of physics, offer a theoretical PW estimation by modulating the main key factors which can affect this variable: the speed, body weight, and slope. Therefore, these TPW approaches would offer two interesting criteria to analyze the effects of environment and running conditions on PW offered by new emerging devices.

Therefore, taking into account the scarcity of scientific literature analyzing the feasibility of the PW estimated by the running devices, together with the increasing commercialization of these tools, this study aimed to analyze the level of agreement between PW estimated by five commercial technologies and two theoretical models based on laws of physics, in different environments and running conditions.

Section snippets

Experimental design

Participants conducted three testing sessions. In the first session, subjects were familiarized with the methodology used in the current study, and they underwent a complete medical examination (including electrocardiogram) to ensure that all participants were able to carry out the test proposed in this study. On the second day (indoor session), subjects performed three submaximal laboratory running tests on a treadmill: i) a submaximal multistage test with speed increases (test 1: speed), ii)

Results

Table 1 presents the TPW modulated by both mathematical models (TPW1 and TPW2) and PW estimated by the technologies for each environment and running condition.

Discussion

The current study aimed to analyze the effects of environment and running conditions on PW estimated by five commercial technologies through the comparison with two mathematical models (TPW1 and TPW2) based on laws of physics, in different environments and running conditions The main findings were that the Stryd and PolarV technologies showed the closest agreement with the TPW1 (Stryd: r ≥ 0.947, PolarV: r ≥ 0.931) and TPW2 (Stryd: r ≥ 0.933, PolarV: r ≥ 0.932) models. On the other hand, the

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the participants for their invaluable contribution to the study.

References (23)

  • R.L. Aubry et al.

    An assessment of running power as a training metric for elite and recreational runners

    J. Strength Cond. Res.

    (2018)
  • F. García-Pinillos et al.

    Prediction of power output at different running velocities through the two-point method with the Stryd™ power meter

    Gait Posture

    (2019)
  • P.C. Bourdon et al.

    Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement

    Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform.

    (2017)
  • L. Passfield et al.

    Knowledge is power: issues of measuring training and performance in cycling

    J. Sports Sci

    (2017)
  • C. Austin et al.

    The relationship between running power and running economy in well-trained distance runners

    Sports

    (2018)
  • I. Mujika

    Quantification of training and competition loads in endurance sports: methods and applications

    Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform

    (2017)
  • K. Currell et al.

    Validity, reliability and sensitivity of measures of sporting performance

    Sport. Med.

    (2008)
  • J. Courel-Ibáñez et al.

    Reproducibility and repeatability of five different technologies for bar velocity measurement in resistance training,

    Ann. Biomed. Eng.

    (2019)
  • J.G. Pallarés et al.

    Validity and reliability of the powertap p1 pedals power meter

    J. Sports Sci. Med.

    (2018)
  • A. Bouillod et al.

    Reproducibility, and robustness of the powertap, stages, and garmin vector power meters in comparison with the SRM device

    Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform

    (2017)
  • R.M. Koldenhoven et al.

    Validation of a wearable sensor for measuring running biomechanics

    Digit. Biomarkers

    (2018)
  • Cited by (14)

    • Reliability and validity of the Stryd Power Meter during different walking conditions

      2022, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      Knowledge of the reliability and validity of these IMU devices is of paramount importance to collect and interpret data accurately. Some researchers have analyzed the Stryd’s reliability and validity during running [2,5,8–11]. However, the reliability and validity have been less investigated during walking [12,13], and never during walking on positive slopes using different backpack loads.

    • Stryd biomechanical parameters as indicators of running economy and performance

      2024, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology
    • Determining critical power and W′ in running: Accuracy of different two-point models using the power metric

      2023, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text