Felipe García-Pinillos1, Pedro Á Latorre-Román2, Luis E Roche-Seruendo3, Amador García-Ramos4. 1. Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. Electronic address: fegarpi@gmail.com. 2. University of Jaen, Department of Corporal Expression, Campus de Las Lagunillas s/n. D2 Building, Dep. 142., 23071, Jaen, Spain. Electronic address: platorre@ujaen.es. 3. Universidad San Jorge. Campus Universitario, A23 km 299, 50830, Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain. Electronic address: leroche@usj.es. 4. Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of the Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile. Electronic address: amagr@ugr.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. RESEARCH QUESTION: 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. METHODS: 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-1) as well as from three two-point methods based on proximal (10 and 12 km·h-1), intermediate (10 and 14 km·h-1) and distal (10 and 17 km·h-1) velocities. RESULTS: 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 ( r2 = 0.091) and two-point method distal ( r2 = 0.092) did not show heteroscedasticity of the error. SIGNIFICANCE: The two-point method based on distant velocities (i.e., 10 and 17 km·h-1) 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. RESEARCH QUESTION: 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. METHODS: 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-1) as well as from three two-point methods based on proximal (10 and 12 km·h-1), intermediate (10 and 14 km·h-1) and distal (10 and 17 km·h-1) velocities. RESULTS: 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 ( r2 = 0.091) and two-point method distal ( r2 = 0.092) did not show heteroscedasticity of the error. SIGNIFICANCE: The two-point method based on distant velocities (i.e., 10 and 17 km·h-1) 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.
Authors: Diego Jaén-Carrillo; Luis E Roche-Seruendo; Alejandro Molina-Molina; Silvia Cardiel-Sánchez; Antonio Cartón-Llorente; Felipe García-Pinillos Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Stephanie R Moore; Christina Kranzinger; Julian Fritz; Thomas Stӧggl; Josef Krӧll; Hermann Schwameder Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Diego Jaén-Carrillo; Luis E Roche-Seruendo; Antonio Cartón-Llorente; Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo; Felipe García-Pinillos Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.576