F J Hettinga1, J J de Koning, M Hulleman, C Foster. 1. Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.j.hettinga@med.umcg.nl
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Both mean power output (MPO) and the distribution of the available energy over the race, that is, pacing strategy, are critical factors in performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of both pacing strategy and MPO to performance. METHODS: Six well-trained, regionally competitive cyclists performed four 1500-m ergometer time trials (∼2 min). For each subject, the fastest (Fast) and slowest (Slow) time trials were compared and the relative importance of differences in power output and pacing strategy were determined with an energy flow model. RESULTS: The difference in final time between Fast and Slow was 4.0 (2.5) s. Fast was performed with a higher MPO (437.8 (32.3) W vs 411.3 (39.0) W), a higher aerobic peak power (295.3 (36.8) vs 287.5 (34.7) W) and a higher anaerobic peak power (828.8 (145.4) W vs 649.5 (112.2) W) combined with a relatively higher, but not statistically different anaerobic rate constant (0.051 (0.016) vs 0.041 (0.009) W). The changes in MPO (63% anaerobic, 37% aerobic) largely explained the differences in final times. Athletes chose a different pacing strategy that was close to optimal for their physiological condition in both Fast and Slow. CONCLUSION: Differences in intraindividual performance were mainly caused by differences in MPO. Athletes seemed to be able to effectively adjust their pacing profile based on their "status of the day". Keywords modelling performance, energy expenditure, aerobic, anaerobic, sports.
INTRODUCTION: Both mean power output (MPO) and the distribution of the available energy over the race, that is, pacing strategy, are critical factors in performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of both pacing strategy and MPO to performance. METHODS: Six well-trained, regionally competitive cyclists performed four 1500-m ergometer time trials (∼2 min). For each subject, the fastest (Fast) and slowest (Slow) time trials were compared and the relative importance of differences in power output and pacing strategy were determined with an energy flow model. RESULTS: The difference in final time between Fast and Slow was 4.0 (2.5) s. Fast was performed with a higher MPO (437.8 (32.3) W vs 411.3 (39.0) W), a higher aerobic peak power (295.3 (36.8) vs 287.5 (34.7) W) and a higher anaerobic peak power (828.8 (145.4) W vs 649.5 (112.2) W) combined with a relatively higher, but not statistically different anaerobic rate constant (0.051 (0.016) vs 0.041 (0.009) W). The changes in MPO (63% anaerobic, 37% aerobic) largely explained the differences in final times. Athletes chose a different pacing strategy that was close to optimal for their physiological condition in both Fast and Slow. CONCLUSION: Differences in intraindividual performance were mainly caused by differences in MPO. Athletes seemed to be able to effectively adjust their pacing profile based on their "status of the day". Keywords modelling performance, energy expenditure, aerobic, anaerobic, sports.
Authors: Marco J Konings; Marije T Elferink-Gemser; Inge K Stoter; Dirk van der Meer; Egbert Otten; Florentina J Hettinga Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Emily L Williams; Hollie S Jones; S Andy Sparks; David C Marchant; Adrian W Midgley; Craig A Bridge; Lars R McNaughton Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Raquel Vaquero-Cristóbal; Fernando Alacid; Daniel López-Plaza; José María Muyor; Pedro A López-Miñarro Journal: J Hum Kinet Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Alan Lins Fernandes; João Paulo Lopes-Silva; Rômulo Bertuzzi; Dulce Elena Casarini; Danielle Yuri Arita; David John Bishop; Adriano Eduardo Lima-Silva Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hollie S Jones; Emily L Williams; David Marchant; S Andy Sparks; Craig A Bridge; Adrian W Midgley; Lars R Mc Naughton Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.566