This aim of this study was to examine the validity of energy expenditure derived from microtechnology when measured during a repeated-effort rugby protocol. Sixteen male rugby players completed a repeated-effort protocol comprising 3 sets of 6 collisions during which movement activity and energy expenditure (EE GPS ) were measured using microtechnology. In addition, energy expenditure was estimated from open-circuit spirometry (EE VO2 ). While related ( r = .63, 90%CI .08–.89), there was a systematic underestimation of energy expenditure during the protocol (–5.94 ± 0.67 kcal/min) for EE GPS (7.2 ± 1.0 kcal/min) compared with EE VO2 (13.2 ± 2.3 kcal/min). High-speed-running distance ( r = .50, 95%CI –.66 to .84) was related to EE VO2 , while PlayerLoad was not ( r = .37, 95%CI –.81 to .68). While metabolic power might provide a different measure of external load than other typically used microtechnology metrics (eg, high-speed running, PlayerLoad), it underestimates energy expenditure during intermittent team sports that involve collisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Highton et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: