4.4 Article

Physiological Determinants of the Cycling Time Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 2366-2373

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31827f5427

关键词

aerobic endurance; maximal oxygen consumption; lactate threshold; cycling economy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

StOren, O, Ulevag, K, Larsen, MH, StOa, EM, and Helgerud, J. Physiological determinants of the cycling time trial. J Strength Cond Res 27(9): 2366-2373, 2013The purpose of this study was to examine the physiological determinants of endurance cycling time trial (TT) performance in a heterogeneous group of competitive male road cyclists. About 15 male cyclists who had all competed in cycling the preceding season were tested for the anthropometric variables height, body weight, leg length, ankle circumference, and body fat percentage. They were also tested for maximal oxygen consumption (V.o(2)max), lactate threshold (LT), metabolic cost of cycling (C-C), peak power output and average power output during a 30-second Wingate test, 1 repetition maximum and peak power in half squats, and a TT test on an ergometer. Heart rate and cadence (rounds per minute, RPM) were continuously measured during all cycle tests. Pearson Bivariate correlation tests and single linear regression tests were performed to obtain correlation coefficients (r), effect size (F), standard error of estimate (SEE), and 95% confidence interval. The single variable that correlated best with TT performance was power output at LT (r = 0.86, p < 0.01). Standard error of estimate was 7.5%. Lactate threshold expressed in %V.o(2)max did not correlate significantly with TT performance. An equation representing both aerobic and anaerobic endurance capacity TT(w) = 0.95 ([V.o(2)max/C-C] TT%V.o(2)max) + 0.05 (Wingate average) correlated strongly with TT laboratory performance (r = 0.93, p < 0.01, SEE = 5.7%). None of the strength, power, or anthropometric variables correlated significantly with TT laboratory performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据