ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2024
Power or speed: Which metric is more accurate for modelling endurance running performance on track?
Article in European journal of sport science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of the STRYDSports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Measurement and Application of Critical Speed and D' in Running: A Scoping Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the power output, measured by a power meter, with respect to the speed, measured by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sport watch to determine the critical power (CP) and speed (CS), work over CP (W') and CS (D'), and long-duration performance (i.e., 60 min). Fifteen highly trained athletes randomly performed seven time trials on a 400 m track. The CP/CS and W'/D' were defined through the inverse of time model using the 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 min trials. The 60 min performance was estimated through the power law model using the 1, 3, and 10 min trials and compared with the actual performance. A lower standard error of the estimate was obtained when using the power meter (CP: 2.7 [2.1-3.3] % and W': 13.8 [10.4-17.3] %) compared to the speed reported by the IMU (CS: 3.4 [2.5-4.3] %) and D': 20.7 [16.6-24.7] %) and GNSS sport watch (CS: 3.4 [2.5-4.3] % and D': 20.6 [16.7-24.7] %). A lower coefficient of variation was also observed for the power meter (4.9 [3.7-6.1] %) Regarding the speed reported by the IMU (10.9 [7.1-14.8] %) and GNSS sport watch (10.9 [7.0-14.7] %) in the 60 min performance estimation, the power meter offered lower errors than the IMU and GNSS sport watch for modelling endurance performance on the track.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.