Augmenting performance feedback does not affect 4 km cycling time-trials in the heat.

We compared the effects of (1) accurate and (2) surreptitiously augmented performance feedback on power output and physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in the heat. Nine cyclists completed a baseline (BaseL) 4000 m time-trial in ambient temperatures of 30°C, followed by two further 4000 m time-trials at the same temperature, randomly assigning the participants to an accurate (ACC; accurate feedback of baseline) or deceived (DEC; 2% increase above baseline) feedback group. The total power output (PO) and aerobic (Paer) and anaerobic (Pan) contributions were determined at 0.4 km stages during the time-trials, alongside measurements of rectal (Trec) and skin (Tskin) temperatures. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in any of the variables between BaseL, ACC and DEC, despite increases (P < 0.05) in Trec and Tskin. Typical pacing profiles were demonstrated; however, there was no interaction (P > 0.05) between feedback condition and time-trial stage. Providing surreptitiously augmented performance feedback to well-trained cyclists did not alter their performance or physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in a hot environment. The assumed influence of augmented performance feedback was nullified in the heat, perhaps reflecting a central down-regulation of exercise intensity in response to an increased body temperature.

Within-Season Distribution of External Training and Racing Workload in Professional Male Road Cyclists.

PURPOSE: To describe the within-season external workloads of professional male road cyclists for optimal training prescription. METHODS: Training and racing of 4 international competitive professional male cyclists (age 24 ± 2 y, body mass 77.6 ± 1.5 kg) were monitored for 12 mo before the world team-time-trial championships. Three within-season phases leading up to the team-time-trial world championships on September 20, 2015, were defined as phase 1 (Oct-Jan), phase 2 (Feb-May), and phase 3 (June-Sept). Distance and time were compared between training and racing days and over each of the various phases. Times spent in absolute (<100, 100-300, 400-500, >500 W) and relative (0-1.9, 2.0-4.9, 5.0-7.9, >8 W/kg) power zones were also compared for the whole season and between phases 1-3. RESULTS: Total distance (3859 ± 959 vs 10911 ± 620 km) and time (240.5 ± 37.5 vs 337.5 ± 26 h) were lower (P < .01) in phase 1 than phase 2. Total distance decreased (P < .01) from phase 2 to phase 3 (10911 ± 620 vs 8411 ± 1399 km, respectively). Mean absolute (236 ± 12.1 vs 197 ± 3 W) and relative (3.1 ± 0 vs 2.5 ± 0 W/kg) power output were higher (P < .05) during racing than training, respectively. CONCLUSION: Volume and intensity differed between training and racing over each of 3 distinct within-season phases.

Distribution of power output when establishing a breakaway in cycling.

A number of laboratory-based performance tests have been designed to mimic the dynamic and stochastic nature of road cycling. However, the distribution of power output and thus physical demands of high-intensity surges performed to establish a breakaway during actual competitive road cycling are unclear. Review of data from professional road-cycling events has indicated that numerous short-duration (5-15 s), high-intensity (~9.5-14 W/kg) surges are typically observed in the 5-10 min before athletes' establishing a breakaway (ie, riding away from a group of cyclists). After this initial high-intensity effort, power output declined but remained high (~450-500 W) for a further 30 s to 5 min, depending on race dynamics (ie, the response of the chase group). Due to the significant influence competitors have on pacing strategies, it is difficult for laboratory-based performance tests to precisely replicate this aspect of mass-start competitive road cycling. Further research examining the distribution of power output during competitive road racing is needed to refine laboratory-based simulated stochastic performance trials and better understand the factors important to the success of a breakaway.

Validity and reproducibility of the ErgomoPro power meter compared with the SRM and Powertap power meters.

PURPOSE: The ErgomoPro (EP) is a power meter that measures power output (PO) during outdoor and indoor cycling via 2 optoelectronic sensors located in the bottom bracket axis. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and the reproducibility of the EP compared with the SRM crank set and Powertap hub (PT). METHODS: The validity of the EP was tested in the laboratory during 8 submaximal incremental tests (PO: 100 to 400 W), eight 30-min submaximal constant-power tests (PO = 180 W), and 8 sprint tests (PO > 750 W) and in the field during 8 training sessions (time: 181 +/- 73 min; PO: approximately 140 to 160 W). The reproducibility was assessed by calculating the coefficient of PO variation (CV) during the submaximal incremental and constant tests. RESULTS: The EP provided a significantly higher PO than the SRM and PT during the submaximal incremental test: The mean PO differences were +6.3% +/- 2.5% and +11.1% +/- 2.1% respectively. The difference was greater during field training sessions (+12.0% +/- 5.7% and +16.5% +/- 5.9%) but lower during sprint tests (+1.6% +/- 2.5% and +3.2% +/- 2.7%). The reproducibility of the EP is lower than those of the SRM and PT (CV = 4.1% +/- 1.8%, 1.9% +/- 0.4%, and 2.1% +/- 0.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The EP power meter appears less valid and reliable than the SRM and PT systems.