3.8 Article

Anticipatory pacing strategies during supramaximal exercise lasting longer than 30 S

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 309-314

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000113474.31529.C6

Keywords

wingate; power output; fatigue; central regulation; end point

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study assessed whether pacing strategies are adopted during supramaximal exercise bouts lasting longer than 30 s. Methods: Eight healthy males performed six Wingate anaerobic tests (WAnT). Subjects were informed that they were performing four 30-s WAnT, a 33-s, and a 36-s WAnT. However, they actually completed two trials of 30, 33, and 36 s each. Temporal feedback in the deception trials was manipulated so that subjects were unaware of the time discrepancy. Power output was determined from the angular displacement of the flywheel. The peak power (PPI), mean power (MPI), and fatigue (FI) indices were calculated for each trial. Results: Power output was similar for all trials up to 30 s. However, at 36 s, the power output was significantly lower in the 36-s deception trial compared with the 36-s informed trial (392 +/- 32 W vs 470 +/- 88 W) (P < 0.001). The MPI was significantly lower in the 36-s trials (714 +/- 76 W and 713 +/- 78 W) compared with the 30-s trials (745 +/- 65 W and 764 +/- 82 W) although they were not different at 30 s (764 +/- 83 W and 755 +/- 79 W). The significant reduction in FI was greatest in the 36-s deception trial. Conclusions: The significant reduction in power output in the last 6 s of the 36-s deception trial, but not in the 36-s informed trial, indicates the presence of a preprogrammed 30-s end point based on the anticipated exercise duration from previous experience. The similarity in pacing strategy suggests that the pacing strategy is centrally regulated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available