Literature DB >> 19757861

The analysis and utilization of cycling training data.

Simon A Jobson1, Louis Passfield, Greg Atkinson, Gabor Barton, Philip Scarf.   

Abstract

Most mathematical models of athletic training require the quantification of training intensity and quantity or 'dose'. We aim to summarize both the methods available for such quantification, particularly in relation to cycle sport, and the mathematical techniques that may be used to model the relationship between training and performance. Endurance athletes have used training volume (kilometres per week and/or hours per week) as an index of training dose with some success. However, such methods usually fail to accommodate the potentially important influence of training intensity. The scientific literature has provided some support for alternative methods such as the session rating of perceived exertion, which provides a subjective quantification of the intensity of exercise; and the heart rate-derived training impulse (TRIMP) method, which quantifies the training stimulus as a composite of external loading and physiological response, multiplying the training load (stress) by the training intensity (strain). Other methods described in the scientific literature include 'ordinal categorization' and a heart rate-based excess post-exercise oxygen consumption method. In cycle sport, mobile cycle ergometers (e.g. SRM and PowerTap) are now widely available. These devices allow the continuous measurement of the cyclists' work rate (power output) when riding their own bicycles during training and competition. However, the inherent variability in power output when cycling poses several challenges in attempting to evaluate the exact nature of a session. Such variability means that average power output is incommensurate with the cyclist's physiological strain. A useful alternative may be the use of an exponentially weighted averaging process to represent the data as a 'normalized power'. Several research groups have applied systems theory to analyse the responses to physical training. Impulse-response models aim to relate training loads to performance, taking into account the dynamic and temporal characteristics of training and, therefore, the effects of load sequences over time. Despite the successes of this approach it has some significant limitations, e.g. an excessive number of performance tests to determine model parameters. Non-linear artificial neural networks may provide a more accurate description of the complex non-linear biological adaptation process. However, such models may also be constrained by the large number of datasets required to 'train' the model. A number of alternative mathematical approaches such as the Performance-Potential-Metamodel (PerPot), mixed linear modelling, cluster analysis and chaos theory display conceptual richness. However, much further research is required before such approaches can be considered as viable alternatives to traditional impulse-response models. Some of these methods may not provide useful information about the relationship between training and performance. However, they may help describe the complex physiological training response phenomenon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19757861     DOI: 10.2165/11317840-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sports Med        ISSN: 0112-1642            Impact factor:   11.136


  48 in total

Review 1.  Fractal and complexity measures of heart rate variability.

Authors:  Juha S Perkiömäki; Timo H Mäkikallio; Heikki V Huikuri
Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens       Date:  2005 Feb-Apr       Impact factor: 1.749

2.  Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an "optimal" distribution?

Authors:  K Stephen Seiler; Glenn Øvrevik Kjerland
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.221

3.  Exercise intensity and load during uphill cycling in professional 3-week races.

Authors:  Sabino Padilla; Iñigo Mujika; Juanma Santisteban; Franco M Impellizzeri; Juan José Goiriena
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2007-11-03       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Optimizing athletic performance by influence curves.

Authors:  J R Fitz-Clarke; R H Morton; E W Banister
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1991-09

5.  Power output during a professional men's road-cycling tour.

Authors:  Tammie R Ebert; David T Martin; Brian Stephens; Robert T Withers
Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.010

Review 6.  Application of chaos theory to biology and medicine.

Authors:  J E Skinner; M Molnar; T Vybiral; M Mitra
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  1992 Jan-Mar

Review 7.  Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data.

Authors:  A Cnaan; N M Laird; P Slasor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Nonlinear heart rate variability analysis may predict atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  Dmitri Chamchad; George Djaiani; Hyun Ju Jung; Lev Nakhamchik; Jo Carroll; Jay C Horrow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  Dynamical analysis of diastolic heart sounds associated with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  V Padmanabhan; J L Semmlow
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.934

10.  Modeling human performance in running.

Authors:  R H Morton; J R Fitz-Clarke; E W Banister
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  1990-09
View more
  16 in total

1.  Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance.

Authors:  Mathew G Wilson; Andy M Lane; Chris J Beedie; Abdulaziz Farooq
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Effects of low and high cadence interval training on power output in flat and uphill cycling time-trials.

Authors:  Alfred Nimmerichter; Roger Eston; Norbert Bachl; Craig Williams
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Modelling the HRV Response to Training Loads in Elite Rugby Sevens Players.

Authors:  Sean Williams; Stephen West; Dan Howells; Simon P T Kemp; Andrew A Flatt; Keith Stokes
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 4.  Relationships Between Training Load Indicators and Training Outcomes in Professional Soccer.

Authors:  Arne Jaspers; Michel S Brink; Steven G M Probst; Wouter G P Frencken; Werner F Helsen
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  A comparison of methods for quantifying training load: relationships between modelled and actual training responses.

Authors:  L K Wallace; K M Slattery; Aaron J Coutts
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Determining optimal cadence for an individual road cyclist from field data.

Authors:  Robert Reed; Philip Scarf; Simon Adrian Jobson; Louis Passfield
Journal:  Eur J Sport Sci       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 4.050

7.  Considerations on the Assessment and Use of Cycling Performance Metrics and their Integration in the Athlete's Biological Passport.

Authors:  Paolo Menaspà; Chris R Abbiss
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 4.566

8.  Estimating an individual's oxygen uptake during cycling exercise with a recurrent neural network trained from easy-to-obtain inputs: A pilot study.

Authors:  Andrea Zignoli; Alessandro Fornasiero; Matteo Ragni; Barbara Pellegrini; Federico Schena; Francesco Biral; Paul B Laursen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.

Authors:  Shona L Halson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  An IoT-Based Computational Framework for Healthcare Monitoring in Mobile Environments.

Authors:  Higinio Mora; David Gil; Rafael Muñoz Terol; Jorge Azorín; Julian Szymanski
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.