Although global positioning systems and inertial measurement unit systems are often used to quantify physical variables in training, both types of systems need to be compared, considering their frequent use in measuring physical loads. Thus, the purpose of our study was to test the reliability and validity of speed and distance run measurements at different intensities in indoor and outdoor conditions made by Polar Team Pro and Playermaker. Four participants (age = 30.0 ± 5.1 years, body mass = 76.3 ± 5.3 kg, height = 1.79 ± 0.09 m), each wearing three Polar Team Pro and two Playermaker sensors, performed 100 m runs with different prescribed intensities (i.e., criterion measure) varying from 8 to 24 km h-1, in a straight line and/or rectangle under indoor and outdoor conditions. Both systems underestimated total distance; Playermaker underestimated speed, the extent of which increased as speed increased, while Polar Team Pro overestimated mean speed at 8 km h-1 for the straight-line condition. No differences emerged in mean speed estimated by Polar Team Pro at any intensities other than 20 km h-1, which was underestimated by 2%. The reliability of the sensors was good, given a coefficient of variation (CV) of <2% for all conditions except when measuring indoor conditions with Polar Team Pro (CV ≈ 10%). Intraclass correlations (ICCs) for consistency within the sensors varied from 0.47 to 0.99, and significantly lower ICCs were documented at 8, 10, and 12 km h-1. Both systems underestimated distance measured in indoor and outdoor conditions, and distance validity in different intensities seemed to worsen as speeds increased. Although Polar Team Pro demonstrated poor validity and reliability in indoor conditions, both systems exhibited good reliability between their sensors in outdoor conditions, whereas the reliability within their sensors varied with different speeds.
Keywords: athlete monitoring; athlete tracking; global positioning system; inertial measurement unit; motion analysis; sports technology.