Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Sprinting Force-Velocity Profile Assessed With GPS Devices in Elite Athletes.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to (1) assess the concurrent validity of global positioning systems (GPSs) against a radar device to measure sprinting force-velocity (F-v) profiles and (2) evaluate the interunit reliability of 10-Hz GPS devices (Vector S7, Catapult Innovations). METHODS: Sixteen male elite U18 rugby union players (178.3 [7.6] cm; 78.3 [13.2] kg) participated. Two 50-m sprints interspersed with at least 5 minutes of recovery were completed to obtain input (maximal sprint speed and acceleration time constant τ) and output (theoretical maximal horizontal force, sprinting speed, and horizontal power) F-v profile variables. Sprint running speed was concurrently measured with a radar and 2 GPS units placed on the upper back of each player. Concurrent validity and interunit reliability analyses were performed. RESULTS: Moderate to nearly perfect correlations were observed between radar and GPS-derived F-v variables, with small to large typical errors. Trivial to small coefficients of variation were found regarding the GPS interunit reliability. CONCLUSION: The GPS devices tested in this study represent a valid and reliable alternative to a radar device when assessing sprint acceleration F-v profiles in team-sport players.

Concurrent Validity of a Continuous Glucose-Monitoring System at Rest and During and Following a High-Intensity Interval Training Session.

PURPOSE: To assess the concurrent validity of a continuous blood-glucose-monitoring system (CGM) postbreakfast, preexercise, exercise, and postexercise, while assessing the impact of 2 different breakfasts on the observed level of validity. METHODS: Eight nondiabetic recreational athletes (age = 30.8 [9.5] y; height = 173.6 [6.6] cm; body mass = 70.3 [8.1] kg) took part in the study. Blood glucose concentration was monitored every 10 minutes using both a CGM (FreeStyle Libre, Abbott, France) and finger-prick blood glucose measurements (FreeStyle Optimum) over 4 different periods (postbreakfast, preexercise, exercise, and postexercise). Two different breakfasts (carbohydrates [CHO] and protein oriented) over 2 days (2 × 2 d in total) were used. Statistical analyses included the Bland-Altman method, standardized mean bias (expressed in standardized units), median absolute relative difference, and the Clarke error grid analysis. RESULTS: Overall, mean bias was trivial to small at postbreakfast (effect size ± 90% confidence limits: -0.12 ± 0.08), preexercise (-0.08 ± 0.08), and postexercise (0.25 ± 0.14), while moderate during exercise (0.66 ± 0.09). A higher median absolute relative difference was observed during exercise (13.6% vs 7%-9.5% for the other conditions). While there was no effect of the breakfast type on the median absolute relative difference results, error grid analysis revealed a higher value in zone D (ie, clinically unsafe zone) during exercise for CHO (10.5%) compared with protein (1.6%). CONCLUSION: The CGM device examined in this study can only be validly used at rest, after both a CHO and protein-rich breakfast. Using CGM to monitor blood glucose concentration during exercise is not recommended. Moreover, the accuracy decreased when CHO were consumed before exercise.