This study aimed to compare the validity of a local positioning system (LPS) during outdoor and indoor conditions for team sports. The impact of different filtering techniques was also investigated. Five male team sport athletes (age: 27 ± 2 years; maximum oxygen uptake: 48.4 ± 5.1 mL/min/kg) performed 10 trials on a team sport-specific circuit on an artificial turf and in a sports hall. During the circuit, athletes wore two devices of a recent 20-Hz LPS. From the reported raw and differently filtered velocity data, distances covered during different walking, jogging, and sprinting sections within the circuit were computed for which the circuit was equipped with double-light timing gates as criterion measures. The validity was determined by comparing the known and measured distances via the relative typical error of estimate (TEE). The LPS validity for measuring distances covered was good to moderate during both environments (TEE: 0.9–7.1%), whereby the outdoor validity (TEE: 0.9–6.4%) was superior than indoor validity (TEE: 1.2–7.1%). During both environments, validity outcomes of an unknown manufacturer filter were superior (TEE: 0.9–6.2%) compared to those of a standard Butterworth filter (TEE: 0.9–6.4%) and to unprocessed raw data (TEE: 1.0–7.1%). Our findings show that the evaluated LPS can be considered as a good to moderately valid tracking technology to assess running-based movement patterns in team sports during outdoor and indoor conditions. However, outdoor was superior to indoor validity, and also impacted by the applied filtering technique. Our outcomes should be considered for practical purposes like match and training analyses in team sport environments.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Maximal force-velocity (F/v) profiles for track cyclists are commonly derived from ergometer sprints using an isovelocity or isoinertial approach. Previously, an attempt was made to derive maximal F/v profiles from a single maximal 65-m sprint on the cycling track. Hypothesising that this approach may not accurately reflect the fatigue-free F/v profile, we propose an alternative procedure and compare it to the previous method. Moreover, we test for the impact of gear ratio on diagnostic results. Methods: Twelve elite track cyclists completed a high-cadence low-resistance pedalling test on a freestanding roller (motoric test) and two series of three maximal 65-m sprints on a cycling track with different gear ratios. F/v profiles were calculated based on the measured crank force and cadence either during the first 6–7 revolutions (≤6 s) on the track (model I) or were derived from the first 3–4 revolutions (≤3 s) on the track combined with 1 or 2 fatigue-free cycles at cadences above 160 rpm from the motoric test (model II). Results: Although both models exhibit high-to-excellent linearity between force and velocity, the extrapolated isometric force was higher (1507.51 ± 257.60 N and 1384.35 ± 276.84 N; p < 0.002; d = 2.555) and the slope steeper ( and ; p < 0.003, d = −2.401) with model I. An ICC of 1.00 indicates excellent model consistency when comparing the F/v profiles (model II) derived from the different geared sprints. Conclusions: Assuring fatigue-free measurements and including high-cadence data points in the calculations provide valid maximal F/v and P/v profiles from a single acceleration-sprint independent of gear ratio.

No abstract

No abstract

Sprint races in track cycling are characterised by maximal power requirements and high-power output over 15 to 75 s. As competition rules limit the athlete to a single gear, the choice of gear ratio has considerable impact on performance. Traditionally, a gear favouring short start times and rapid acceleration, i.e., lower transmission ratios, was chosen. In recent years, track cyclists tended to choose higher gear ratios instead. Based on a review of the relevant literature, we aimed to provide an explanation for that increase in the gear ratio chosen and apply this to a 1000 m time trial. Race data with continuous measurements of crank force and velocity of an elite track cyclist were analysed retrospectively regarding the influence of the selected gear on power, cadence and resulting speed. For this purpose, time-dependent maximal force-velocity (F/v) profiles were used to describe changes in performance with increasing fatigue. By applying these profiles to a physical model of track cycling, theoretical power output, cadence and resulting speed were calculated for different scenarios. Based on previous research results, we assume a systematic and predictable decline in optimal cadence with increasing fatigue. The choice of higher gear ratios seems to be explained physiologically by the successive reduction in optimal cadence as fatigue sets in. Our approach indicates that average power output can be significantly increased by selecting a gear ratio that minimises the difference between the realised cadence and the time-dependent dynamic optimum. In view of the additional effects of the gear selection on acceleration and speed, gear selection should optimally meet the various requirements of the respective sprint event.

No abstract