Are we ready to measure running power? Repeatability and concurrent validity of five commercial technologies

Cerezuela Espejo, Víctor; Hernández Belmonte, Alejandro; Courel Ibáñez, Javier; Conesa Ros, Elena; Mora Rodríguez, Ricardo; García Pallarés, Jesús

Publication:
Are we ready to measure running power? Repeatability and concurrent validity of five commercial technologies

dc.contributor.author	Cerezuela Espejo, Víctor
dc.contributor.author	Hernández Belmonte, Alejandro
dc.contributor.author	Courel Ibáñez, Javier
dc.contributor.author	Conesa Ros, Elena
dc.contributor.author	Mora Rodríguez, Ricardo
dc.contributor.author	García Pallarés, Jesús
dc.contributor.department	Actividad Física y Deporte
dc.date.accessioned	2026-02-25T09:10:50Z
dc.date.available	2026-02-25T09:10:50Z
dc.date.copyright	© 2020 European College of Sport Science
dc.date.issued	2021-03
dc.description.abstract	Training prescription in running activities have benefited from power output (PW) data obtained by new technologies. Nevertheless, to date, the suitability of PW data provided by these tools is still uncertain. The present study aimed to: (i) analyze the repeatability of five commercially available technologies for running PW estimation, and (ii) examine the concurrent validity through the relationship between each technology PW and oxygen uptake (VO2). On two occasions (test-retest), twelve endurance-trained male athletes performed on a treadmill (indoor) and an athletic track (outdoor) three submaximal running protocols with manipulations in speed, body weight and slope. PW was simultaneously registered by the commercial technologies StrydApp, StrydWatch, RunScribe, GarminRP and PolarV, while VO2 was monitored by a metabolic cart. Test-retest data from the environments (indoor and outdoor) and conditions (speed, body weight and slope) were used for repeatability analysis, which included the standard error of measurement (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A linear regression analysis and the standard error of estimate (SEE) were used to examine the relationship between PW and VO2. Stryd device was found as the most repeatable technology for all environments and conditions (SEM ≤ 12.5 W, CV ≤ 4.3%, ICC ≥ 0.980), besides the best concurrent validity to the VO2 (r ≥ 0.911, SEE ≤ 7.3%). On the contrary, although the PolarV, GarminRP and RunScribe technologies maintain a certain relationship with VO2, their low repeatability questions their suitability. The Stryd can be considered as the most recommended tool, among the analyzed, for PW measurement.
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.format.extent	10
dc.identifier.citation	European Journal of Sport Science, 2021, Volume21, Issue3, pp. 341-350
dc.identifier.doi	https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1748117
dc.identifier.eissn	1536-7290
dc.identifier.issn	1746-1391
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10201/212901
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Wiley
dc.relation	Sin financiación externa a la Universidad
dc.relation.publisherversion	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17461391.2020.1748117
dc.rights	Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International	*
dc.rights.accessRights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/	*
dc.subject	Testing
dc.subject	Biomechanics
dc.subject	Exercise
dc.subject	Kinetics
dc.subject	Physiology
dc.subject.ods	Objetivo 3: Salud
dc.title	Are we ready to measure running power? Repeatability and concurrent validity of five commercial technologies
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.version	info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dspace.entity.type	Publication	es
relation.isAuthorOfPublication	a4bb5157-12e0-489d-8fb2-ff3b3d5a2c4d
relation.isAuthorOfPublication	80068a3a-c0e8-41e6-8182-c9a2f810e175
relation.isAuthorOfPublication	89567ac9-6889-42c8-a5ce-426013678520
relation.isAuthorOfPublication	80de5692-18b8-43b2-a202-ae1faa96659c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery	a4bb5157-12e0-489d-8fb2-ff3b3d5a2c4d