Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer

Purpose: Instrumentation systems are increasingly used in rowing to measure training intensity and performance but have not been validated for measures of power. In this study, the concurrent validity of Peach PowerLine (six units), Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower (five units), Weba OarPowerMeter (three u...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ana C. Holt, William G. Hopkins, Robert J. Aughey, Rodney Siegel, Vincent Rouillard, Kevin Ball
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:	Peach PowerLine Weba OarPowerMeter Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower technical error of measurement systematic error between-unit differences Physiology QP1-981
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7ad2732da1ed42a7852e82a832938daa
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7ad2732da1ed42a7852e82a832938daa
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7ad2732da1ed42a7852e82a832938daa2021-11-12T06:22:08ZConcurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer1664-042X10.3389/fphys.2021.758015https://doaj.org/article/7ad2732da1ed42a7852e82a832938daa2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2021.758015/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/1664-042XPurpose: Instrumentation systems are increasingly used in rowing to measure training intensity and performance but have not been validated for measures of power. In this study, the concurrent validity of Peach PowerLine (six units), Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower (five units), Weba OarPowerMeter (three units), Concept2 model D ergometer (one unit), and a custom-built reference instrumentation system (Reference System; one unit) were investigated.Methods: Eight female and seven male rowers [age, 21 ± 2.5 years; rowing experience, 7.1 ± 2.6 years, mean ± standard deviation (SD)] performed a 30-s maximal test and a 7 × 4-min incremental test once per week for 5 weeks. Power per stroke was extracted concurrently from the Reference System (via chain force and velocity), the Concept2 itself, Weba (oar shaft-based), and either Peach or EmPower (oarlock-based). Differences from the Reference System in the mean (representing potential error) and the stroke-to-stroke variability (represented by its SD) of power per stroke for each stage and device, and between-unit differences, were estimated using general linear mixed modeling and interpreted using rejection of non-substantial and substantial hypotheses.Results: Potential error in mean power was decisively substantial for all devices (Concept2, –11 to –15%; Peach, −7.9 to −17%; EmPower, −32 to −48%; and Weba, −7.9 to −16%). Between-unit differences (as SD) in mean power lacked statistical precision but were substantial and consistent across stages (Peach, ∼5%; EmPower, ∼7%; and Weba, ∼2%). Most differences from the Reference System in stroke-to-stroke variability of power were possibly or likely trivial or small for Peach (−3.0 to −16%), and likely or decisively substantial for EmPower (9.7–57%), and mostly decisively substantial for Weba (61–139%) and the Concept2 (−28 to 177%).Conclusion: Potential negative error in mean power was evident for all devices and units, particularly EmPower. Stroke-to-stroke variation in power showed a lack of measurement sensitivity (apparent smoothing) that was minor for Peach but larger for the Concept2, whereas EmPower and Weba added random error. Peach is therefore recommended for measurement of mean and stroke power.Ana C. HoltWilliam G. HopkinsRobert J. AugheyRodney SiegelRodney SiegelRodney SiegelVincent RouillardKevin BallFrontiers Media S.A.articlePeach PowerLineWeba OarPowerMeterNielsen-Kellerman EmPowertechnical error of measurementsystematic errorbetween-unit differencesPhysiologyQP1-981ENFrontiers in Physiology, Vol 12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Peach PowerLine Weba OarPowerMeter Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower technical error of measurement systematic error between-unit differences Physiology QP1-981
spellingShingle	Peach PowerLine Weba OarPowerMeter Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower technical error of measurement systematic error between-unit differences Physiology QP1-981 Ana C. Holt William G. Hopkins Robert J. Aughey Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Vincent Rouillard Kevin Ball Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
description	Purpose: Instrumentation systems are increasingly used in rowing to measure training intensity and performance but have not been validated for measures of power. In this study, the concurrent validity of Peach PowerLine (six units), Nielsen-Kellerman EmPower (five units), Weba OarPowerMeter (three units), Concept2 model D ergometer (one unit), and a custom-built reference instrumentation system (Reference System; one unit) were investigated.Methods: Eight female and seven male rowers [age, 21 ± 2.5 years; rowing experience, 7.1 ± 2.6 years, mean ± standard deviation (SD)] performed a 30-s maximal test and a 7 × 4-min incremental test once per week for 5 weeks. Power per stroke was extracted concurrently from the Reference System (via chain force and velocity), the Concept2 itself, Weba (oar shaft-based), and either Peach or EmPower (oarlock-based). Differences from the Reference System in the mean (representing potential error) and the stroke-to-stroke variability (represented by its SD) of power per stroke for each stage and device, and between-unit differences, were estimated using general linear mixed modeling and interpreted using rejection of non-substantial and substantial hypotheses.Results: Potential error in mean power was decisively substantial for all devices (Concept2, –11 to –15%; Peach, −7.9 to −17%; EmPower, −32 to −48%; and Weba, −7.9 to −16%). Between-unit differences (as SD) in mean power lacked statistical precision but were substantial and consistent across stages (Peach, ∼5%; EmPower, ∼7%; and Weba, ∼2%). Most differences from the Reference System in stroke-to-stroke variability of power were possibly or likely trivial or small for Peach (−3.0 to −16%), and likely or decisively substantial for EmPower (9.7–57%), and mostly decisively substantial for Weba (61–139%) and the Concept2 (−28 to 177%).Conclusion: Potential negative error in mean power was evident for all devices and units, particularly EmPower. Stroke-to-stroke variation in power showed a lack of measurement sensitivity (apparent smoothing) that was minor for Peach but larger for the Concept2, whereas EmPower and Weba added random error. Peach is therefore recommended for measurement of mean and stroke power.
format	article
author	Ana C. Holt William G. Hopkins Robert J. Aughey Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Vincent Rouillard Kevin Ball
author_facet	Ana C. Holt William G. Hopkins Robert J. Aughey Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Rodney Siegel Vincent Rouillard Kevin Ball
author_sort	Ana C. Holt
title	Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
title_short	Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
title_full	Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
title_fullStr	Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
title_full_unstemmed	Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer
title_sort	concurrent validity of power from three on-water rowing instrumentation systems and a concept2 ergometer
publisher	Frontiers Media S.A.
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/7ad2732da1ed42a7852e82a832938daa
work_keys_str_mv	AT anacholt concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT williamghopkins concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT robertjaughey concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT rodneysiegel concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT rodneysiegel concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT rodneysiegel concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT vincentrouillard concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer AT kevinball concurrentvalidityofpowerfromthreeonwaterrowinginstrumentationsystemsandaconcept2ergometer
_version_	1718431178510303232

Concurrent Validity of Power From Three On-Water Rowing Instrumentation Systems and a Concept2 Ergometer

Ejemplares similares