Jeremiah Peiffer1, Chris R Abbiss2, Frederic Sultana3, Thierry Bernard3, Jeanick Brisswalter3,4. 1. School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia. j.peiffer@murdoch.edu.au. 2. Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 3. Laboratory of Human Motricity, Education Sport and Health, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France. 4. School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Locomotive efficiency is cited as an important component to endurance performance; however, inconsistent observations of age-related changes in efficiency question its influence in the performance of masters athletes. PURPOSE: This study examined locomotive efficiency in young and masters triathletes during both a run and cycle test. METHODS: Twenty young (28.5 ± 2.6 years) and 20 masters (59.8 ± 1.3 years) triathletes completed an incremental cycling and running test to determine maximal aerobic consumption (VO2max) and the first ventilatory threshold (VT1). Participants then completed 10-min submaximal running and cycling tests at VT1 during which locomotive efficiency was calculated from expired ventilation. Additionally, body fat percentage was determined using skin-fold assessment. RESULTS: During the cycle and run, VO2max was lower in the masters (48.3 ± 5.4 and 49.6 ± 4.8 ml kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) compared with young (61.6 ± 5.7 and 62.4 ± 5.2 ml kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) cohort. Maximal running speed and the cycling power output corresponding to VO2max were also lower in the masters (15.1 ± 0.8 km h(-1) and 318.6 ± 26.0 W) compared with the young (19.5 ± 1.3 km h(-1) and 383.6 ± 35.0 W) cohort. Cycling efficiency was lower (-11.2%) in the masters compared with young cohort. Similar results were observed for the energy cost of running (+10.8%); however, when scaled to lean body mass, changes were more pronounced during the run (+22.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Within trained triathletes, ageing can influence efficiency in both the run and cycle discipline. While disregarded in the past, efficiency should be considered in research examining performance in ageing athletes.
INTRODUCTION: Locomotive efficiency is cited as an important component to endurance performance; however, inconsistent observations of age-related changes in efficiency question its influence in the performance of masters athletes. PURPOSE: This study examined locomotive efficiency in young and masters triathletes during both a run and cycle test. METHODS: Twenty young (28.5 ± 2.6 years) and 20 masters (59.8 ± 1.3 years) triathletes completed an incremental cycling and running test to determine maximal aerobic consumption (VO2max) and the first ventilatory threshold (VT1). Participants then completed 10-min submaximal running and cycling tests at VT1 during which locomotive efficiency was calculated from expired ventilation. Additionally, body fat percentage was determined using skin-fold assessment. RESULTS: During the cycle and run, VO2max was lower in the masters (48.3 ± 5.4 and 49.6 ± 4.8 ml kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) compared with young (61.6 ± 5.7 and 62.4 ± 5.2 ml kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) cohort. Maximal running speed and the cycling power output corresponding to VO2max were also lower in the masters (15.1 ± 0.8 km h(-1) and 318.6 ± 26.0 W) compared with the young (19.5 ± 1.3 km h(-1) and 383.6 ± 35.0 W) cohort. Cycling efficiency was lower (-11.2%) in the masters compared with young cohort. Similar results were observed for the energy cost of running (+10.8%); however, when scaled to lean body mass, changes were more pronounced during the run (+22.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Within trained triathletes, ageing can influence efficiency in both the run and cycle discipline. While disregarded in the past, efficiency should be considered in research examining performance in ageing athletes.
Authors: Lex B Verdijk; René Koopman; Gert Schaart; Kenneth Meijer; Hans H C M Savelberg; Luc J C van Loon Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Jeremiah J Peiffer; Christopher R Abbiss; Dale Chapman; Paul B Laursen; Daryl L Parker Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Kevin R Short; Maureen L Bigelow; Jane Kahl; Ravinder Singh; Jill Coenen-Schimke; Sreekumar Raghavakaimal; K Sreekumaran Nair Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alicia Borrego-Sánchez; Maria Jesus Vinolo-Gil; Maria de-la-Casa-Almeida; Manuel Rodríguez-Huguet; María Jesús Casuso-Holgado; Rocío Martín-Valero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.390