| Literature DB >> 29987475 |
Andreas Venhorst1, Dominic P Micklewright2, Timothy D Noakes3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Hitting the wall" (HTW) can be understood as a psychophysiological stress process characterised by (A) discrete and poignant onset, (B) dynamic interplay between physiological, affective, motivational, cognitive, and behavioural systems, and (C) unintended alteration of pace and performance. A preceding companion article investigated the psychophysiological responses to 20-km self-paced treadmill time trials after producing exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) via a standardised muscle-lengthening contraction protocol.Entities:
Keywords: Central regulation; Decision-making; Mediation analysis; Pacing behaviour; Perceived fatigability; Performance fatigability; Structural equation modelling
Year: 2018 PMID: 29987475 PMCID: PMC6037658 DOI: 10.1186/s40798-018-0144-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sports Med Open ISSN: 2198-9761
Fig. 1Trial-related differences in main study variables in response to running with mild exercise-induced muscle damage. Panels show: a = blood leucocyte count; b = blood neutrophil count; c = blood cortisol concentration; d = perceived physical strain; e = valence; f = action crisis; g = performance fatigability Note the differences in x-axes of action crisis and haematological variables due to different sampling times. Abbreviations: % = treatment × time interaction effect; $ = simple (main) time effect for intervention trials; § = simple (main) time effect for control trials; * = simple (main) treatment effect; & = main treatment effect; # = main time effect; DJ/CTRL = drop-jump protocol versus control; RE = running economy test; CTT = control time trial; ITT = intervention time trial
Zero-order correlations between trial-related differences in area under the curve of main study variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Δ AUC-leucocytes | – | |||||
| 2. Δ AUC-neutrophils | .98** | – | ||||
| 3. Δ AUC-cortisol | .56** | .59** | – | |||
| 4. Δ AUC-perceived physical strain | .54* | .52* | .33 | – | ||
| 5. Δ AUC-valence | − .65** | − .69** | − .58** | − .78** | – | |
| 6. Δ AUC-action crisis | .45* | .47* | .30 | .40 | − .51* | – |
| 7. Performance fatigability | .36 | .39 | .51* | .12 | − .36 | .57** |
Abbreviations: Δ AUC = trial-related difference in area under the curve. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Fig. 2Mediation model of haematological indicators of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD), perceived physical strain, and valence. Note: trial-related differences in area under the curve (∆ AUC) of blood leucocyte and neutrophil count were used to indicate greater extent of EIMD during intervention trials. For graphical simplicity, indicators and errors are not shown. ∆ AUC of perceived physical strain was a significant mediating factor in the relationship between ∆ AUC in haematological indicators of EIMD and valence. Abbreviations: squares represent observed variables; ovals represent latent variables; single-headed arrows represent regression paths; bold regression paths are significant at *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01, respectively; EIMD = exercise-induced muscle damage; AUC = area under the curve; R2 = total variance explained; e = residual error
Mediation analysis of perceived physical strain accounting for relationship between exercise-induced muscle damage and valence
| Effect | Standardised estimate | CR | SE | 95%CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path | − .68 | − 4.16 | < .001 | ||
| Path | .38 | 2.09 | .036 | ||
| Path | − .64 | − 5.37 | < .001 | ||
| −. 24 | .145 | [− .022; − .563] | .025 | ||
| Path | − .38 | − 3.22 | .001 |
Note: Maximum likelihood estimates are provided for paths c, a, b, and c’. For the standardised (a × b) indirect effect, bootstrap estimates with CIs are provided. Abbreviations: CR = critical ratio; CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error
Multiple hierarchical regression analyses of control variables, direct predictor variables, and main study outcome variables
| Leucocytes | Neutrophils | Cortisol | Leucocytes | Neutrophils | Perceived physical strain | Valence ➭ | Action crisis | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | ∆ | β | ∆ | β | ∆ | β | ∆ | β | ∆ | β | ∆ | β | ∆R2 | β | ∆ | β |
| Step 1 | .056 | .056 | .002 | .066 | .066 | .022 | .081 | .002 | ||||||||
| Age | − .130 | − .130 | .002 | − .255 | − .255 | .035 | − .183 | .002 | ||||||||
| Weight | .201 | .201 | .042 | .036 | .036 | − .144 | .211 | .042 | ||||||||
| Step 2 | .196 | .196 | .012 | .011 | .011 | .005 | .094 | .012 | ||||||||
| Weekly mileage | .172 | .172 | .150 | .058 | .058 | .029 | −.424 | .150 | ||||||||
| Other training | .538 | .538 | .124 | − .063 | − .063 | − .051 | .161 | .124 | ||||||||
| Step 3 | .004 | .004 | .047 | .220 | .220 | .148 | .015 | .047 | ||||||||
| VO2peak | − .069 | − .069 | − .182 | .463 | .463 | − .175 | .106 | − .182 | ||||||||
| Economy | .067 | .067 | .244 | − .514 | − .514 | .438 | − .140 | .244 | ||||||||
| Step 4 | .372** | .395** | .291* | .307** | .276** | .528** | .210* | .461** | ||||||||
| Direct predictor | .708** | .726** | .626* | .643** | .608** | − .866** | − .504* | .755** | ||||||||
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Fig. 3Structural equation model of physiological and perceptual effects on performance fatigability. Note: trial-related differences in area under the curve of blood leucocyte and neutrophil count were used to indicate greater extent of EIMD during intervention trials. For graphical simplicity indicators and errors are not shown. Abbreviations: squares represent observed variables; ovals are latent variables; single-headed arrows represent regression paths; bold regression paths are significant at *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01, respectively; AUC = area under the curve; R2 = total variance explained; e = residual error; standardised maximum likelihood measures are used. χ2 = chi-square; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; PCLOSE = p of close fit; AIC = Akaike information criterion; SRMR = standardised root mean square residual. Model fit indices are: χ2 = 7.277, p = .776, χ2/11 = .662, NFI = .949, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000 (95%CI = [.000, .156]; PCLOSE = .806), AIC = 55.277, SRMR = .068