Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2019; 40(08): 498-502
DOI: 10.1055/a-0875-4068
Training & STesting
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reliability of Trail Walking and Running Tasks Using the Stryd Power Meter

James Wilfred Navalta
1   Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, United States
,
Jeffrey Montes
1   Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, United States
,
Nathaniel G. Bodell
1   Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, United States
2   Department of Kinesiology, California State University San Bernanino, San Bernadino, California, United States
,
Charli D. Aguilar
1   Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, United States
,
Kara Radzak
1   Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, United States
,
Jacob W. Manning
3   Kinesiology and Outdoor Recreation, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, United States
,
Mark DeBeliso
3   Kinesiology and Outdoor Recreation, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted 05 March 2019

Publication Date:
09 July 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Footpod monitors are wearable devices attaching to the shoe with the ability to sense oscillations in leg movement; however, few studies provide reliability. The purpose was to provide reliability data for outdoor tasks as measured by the Stryd Power Meter, which is a footpod monitor. Young healthy individuals (N=20, male n=12, female n=8) completed two 5-min self-paced walks along a trail, and two 5-min trail runs. Reliability of the tasks was determined using Coefficient of Variation (CV), Intraclass Correlation (ICC), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Measures during trail running that returned a CV less than 10%, met the ICC threshold of 0.70, and displayed good to excellent 95% CI included pace, average elapsed power, average elapsed form power, average elapsed leg spring, and vertical oscillation. The only variable during walking to meet these criteria was maximal power (CV=4.02%, ICC=0.968, CI=0.902, 0.989). Running tasks completed on a trail generally return more consistent measures for variables that can be obtained from the Stryd footpod device than walking tasks.

Key words

wearable technology - footpod device - intraclass correlation - outdoor environment
 

  • References

  • 1 Thompson WR. Worldwide Survey of Fitness Trends for 2016. ACSMs Health Fit J 2015; 19: 9-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thompson WR. Worldwide Survey of Fitness Trends for 2017. ACSMs Health Fit J 2016; 20: 8-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, Blackburn G, Phelan D, Gillinov AM, Houghtaling P, Javadikasgari H, Desai MY. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017; 49: 1697-1703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wallen MP, Gomersall SR, Keating SE, Wisloff U, Coombes JS. Accuracy of heart rate watches: implications for weight management. PloS One 2016; 11: e0154420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 An HS, Jones GC, Kang SK, Welk GJ, Lee JM. How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?. Eur J Sport Sci 2017; 17: 360-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fokkema T, Kooiman TJ, Krijnen WP, Van Der Schans C, De Groot M. Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers depend on walking speed. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017; 49: 793-800
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chowdhury EA, Western MJ, Nightingale TE, Peacock OJ, Thompson D. Assessment of laboratory and daily energy expenditure estimates from consumer multi-sensor physical activity monitors. PloS One 2017; 12: e0171720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Woodman JA, Crouter SE, Bassett Jr. DR, Fitzhugh EC, Boyer WR. Accuracy of consumer monitors for estimating energy expenditure and activity type. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017; 49: 371-377
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Montes J, Young JC, Tandy RD, Navalta JW. Reliability and validation of the Hexoskin wearable bio-collection device during walking conditions. Int J Exerc Sci 2018; 11: 806-816
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tanner E, Montes J, Manning JW, Taylor J, DeBeliso M, Young JC, Navalta JW. Validation of hexoskin biometric shirt to COSMED k4b2 metabolic unit in adults during trail running. Sports Technol 2016; 8: 118-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Navalta JW, Montes J, Bodell NG, Aguilar CD, Lujan A, Guzman G, Kam BK, Manning JW, DeBeliso M. Wearable device validity in determining step count during hiking and trail runnning. J Meas Phys Behav. 2018; 1: 86-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nelson MB, Kaminsky LA, Dickin DC, Montoye AH. Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors for specific activity types. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48: 1619-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aquino JM, Roper JL. Intraindividual variability and validity in smart apparel muscle activity measurements during exercise in men. Int J Exerc Sci 2018; 11: 516-525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Montes J, Stone TM, Manning JW, McCune D, Tacad DK, Young JC, Debeliso M, Navalta JW. Using hexoskin wearable technology to obtain body metrics during trail hiking. Int J Exerc Sci 2015; 8: 425-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Boudreaux BD, Hebert EP, Hollander DB, Williams BM, Cormier CL, Naquin MR, Gillan WW, Gusew EE, Kraemer RR. Validity of wearable activity monitors during cycling and resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2018; 50: 624-633
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Leboeuf SF, Aumer ME, Kraus WE, Johnson JL, Duscha B. Earbud-based sensor for the assessment of energy expenditure, HR, and VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014; 46: 1046-1052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rowlands DD, Usher W, McCarthy M, Leadbetter R, Casey L, Green H, Morris N, Muthukkumarasamy V, Laaskso EL, James DA. An automated activity monitoring system for rehabilitation. Procedia Eng 2013; 60: 232-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jovanov E, Frith K, Anderson F, Milosevic M, Shrove MT. Real-time monitoring of occupational stress of nurses. Conference proceedings : Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Annual Conference 2011; 2011: 3640-3643
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Takata K, Ma J, Apduhan BO, Huang R, Shiratori N. Lifelog image analysis based on activity situation models using contexts from wearable multi sensors. IEEE Multimedia Ubiquitous Eng 2008; 2008: 160-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wijnen M, Hoppenbrouwers MB, Willems JWM. Runalyser: Real time analysis of running technique in practice. Eng Sport 2009; 2: 289-295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sabatini AM, Martelloni C, Scapellato S, Cavallo F. Assessment of walking features from foot inertial sensing. IEEE Tran Bio-Med Eng 2005; 52: 486-494
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wallace LK, Slattery KM, Coutts AJ. A comparison of methods for quantifying training load: relationships between modelled and actual training responses. Eur J Appl Physiol 2014; 114: 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 de Ruiter CJ, van Oeveren B, Francke A, Zijlstra P, van Dieen JH. Running Speed Can Be Predicted from Foot Contact Time during Outdoor over Ground Running. PloS One 2016; 11: e0163023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hausswirth C, Le Meur Y, Couturier A, Bernard T, Brisswalter J. Accuracy and repeatability of the Polar RS800sd to evaluate stride rate and running speed. Int J Sports Med 2009; 30: 354-359
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kane NA, Simmons MC, John D, Thompson DL, Bassett DR. Validity of the Nike+ device during walking and running. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 101-105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bunn JA, Navalta JW, Fountaine CJ, Reece JD. Current state of commercial wearable technology in physical activity monitoring 2015-2017. Int J Exerc Sci 2018; 11: 503-515
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12: 159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Riebe D, Franklin BA, Thompson PD, Garber CE, Whitfield GP, Magal M, Pescatello LS. Updating acsm’s recommendations for exercise preparticipation health screening. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015; 47: 2473-2479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Standards for ethics in sport and exercise science research: 2018 update. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38: 1126-1131
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Baumgartner TA, Jackson AS, Mahar MT. Measurements for Evaluation in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 8th ed New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Farley CT, Gonzalez O. Leg stiffness and stride frequency in human running. J Biomech 1996; 29: 181-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Montes J, Young JC, Tandy RD, Navalta JW. Fitbit flex: Energy expenditure and step count evaluation. J Exerc Physiol online 2017; 20: 134-140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sushames A, Edwards A, Thompson F, McDermott R, Gebel K. Validity and reliability of fitbit flex for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity and activity energy expenditure. PloS One 2016; 11: e0161224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar