PURPOSE: To examine the influence of two different fast-start pacing strategies on performance and oxygen consumption (VO2) during cycle ergometer time trials lasting ∼5 min. METHODS: Eight trained male cyclists performed four cycle ergometer time trials whereby the total work completed (113 ± 11.5 kJ; mean ± SD) was identical to the better of two 5-min self-paced familiarization trials. During the performance trials, initial power output was manipulated to induce either an all-out or a fast start. Power output during the first 60 s of the fast-start trial was maintained at 471.0 ± 48.0 W, whereas the all-out start approximated a maximal starting effort for the first 15 s (mean power: 753.6 ± 76.5 W) followed by 45 s at a constant power output (376.8 ± 38.5 W). Irrespective of starting strategy, power output was controlled so that participants would complete the first quarter of the trial (28.3 ± 2.9 kJ) in 60 s. Participants performed two trials using each condition, with their fastest time trial compared. RESULTS: Performance time was significantly faster when cyclists adopted the all-out start (4 min 48 s ± 8 s) compared with the fast start (4 min 51 s ± 8 s; P < 0.05). The first-quarter VO2 during the all-out start trial (3.4 ± 0.4 L·min(-1)) was significantly higher than during the fast-start trial (3.1 ± 0.4 L·min(-1); P < 0.05). After removal of an outlier, the percentage increase in first-quarter VO2 was significantly correlated (r = -0.86, P < 0.05) with the relative difference in finishing time. CONCLUSIONS: An all-out start produces superior middle distance cycling performance when compared with a fast start. The improvement in performance may be due to a faster VO2 response rather than time saved due to a rapid acceleration.
PURPOSE: To examine the influence of two different fast-start pacing strategies on performance and oxygen consumption (VO2) during cycle ergometer time trials lasting ∼5 min. METHODS: Eight trained male cyclists performed four cycle ergometer time trials whereby the total work completed (113 ± 11.5 kJ; mean ± SD) was identical to the better of two 5-min self-paced familiarization trials. During the performance trials, initial power output was manipulated to induce either an all-out or a fast start. Power output during the first 60 s of the fast-start trial was maintained at 471.0 ± 48.0 W, whereas the all-out start approximated a maximal starting effort for the first 15 s (mean power: 753.6 ± 76.5 W) followed by 45 s at a constant power output (376.8 ± 38.5 W). Irrespective of starting strategy, power output was controlled so that participants would complete the first quarter of the trial (28.3 ± 2.9 kJ) in 60 s. Participants performed two trials using each condition, with their fastest time trial compared. RESULTS: Performance time was significantly faster when cyclists adopted the all-out start (4 min 48 s ± 8 s) compared with the fast start (4 min 51 s ± 8 s; P < 0.05). The first-quarter VO2 during the all-out start trial (3.4 ± 0.4 L·min(-1)) was significantly higher than during the fast-start trial (3.1 ± 0.4 L·min(-1); P < 0.05). After removal of an outlier, the percentage increase in first-quarter VO2 was significantly correlated (r = -0.86, P < 0.05) with the relative difference in finishing time. CONCLUSIONS: An all-out start produces superior middle distance cycling performance when compared with a fast start. The improvement in performance may be due to a faster VO2 response rather than time saved due to a rapid acceleration.