4.6 Article

Influence of Feedback and Prior Experience on Pacing during a 4-km Cycle Time Trial

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 451-458

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181854957

关键词

KNOWLEDGE; SPORTS PERFORMANCE; POWER OUTPUT; FATIGUE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MAUGER, A. R., A. M. JONES, and C. A. WILLIAMS. Influence of Feedback and Prior Experience oil Pricing during a 4-km Cycle Time Trial. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 451-458, 2009. Purpose: To determine the importance of distance knowledge, distance feedback, and prior experience on the setting of a pacing strategy. Methods: Eighteen well-trained male cyclists were randomly assigned to a control (CON) group or all experimental (EXP) group and performed four consecutive 4-km time trials (TT), separated by a 17-min recovery. The CON group received prior knowledge of distance to be cycled and received distance feedback throughout each TT; the EXP group received neither but knew that each TT was of the same distance. Results: The EXP group was significantly slower than the CON group to complete TTI (367.4 +/- 21 vs 409.4 +/- 45.5 s, P < 0.001). Differences between groups in completion time reduced over successive TT (CON TT4 = 373.9 +/- 20 s vs EXP TT4 = 373.8 +/- 14.4 s), shown by a significant linear contrast (F-1,F-16 = 12.39, P < 0.0005). Mean speed and power Output also showed significantly reduced differences between groups over Successive TT (P < 0.0005). However, peak power Output showed no such convergence between groups over TT. End blood lactate was significantly different between groups in TTI, but differences between groups converged with successive TT. Conclusion: The progressively improving completion times in the EXP group show that distance feedback is not essential in developing an appropriate pacing strategy. Prior experience of an unknown distance appears to allow the creation of an internal, relative distance that is used to establish a pacing strategy.

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

4.6
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