Examining pacing profiles in elite female road cyclists using exposure variation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the amplitude and time distribution of power output in a variety of competitive cycling events through the use of a new mathematical analysis was examined: exposure variation analysis (EVA). DESIGN: Descriptive field study. SETTING: Various professional road cycling events, including; a 5-day-eight-stage tour race, a 1-day World Cup event and the Australian National Individual Time Trial Championships. PARTICIPANTS: 9 elite female cyclists (mean (SD), mass = 57.8 (3.4) kg, height = 167.3 (2.8) cm, Vo(2)peak = 63.2 (5.2) ml kg(-1) min(-1)). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The variation in power output and the quantification of the total time and acute time spent at various exercise intensities during competitive professional cycling were examined. Predefined levels of exercise intensity that elicited first ventilation threshold, second ventilation threshold and maximal aerobic power were determined from a graded exercise test performed before the events and compared with power output during each event. RESULTS: EVA exposed that power output during the time trial was highly variable (EVA(SD) = 2.81 (0.33)) but more evenly distributed than the circuit/criterium (4.23 (0.31)) and road race events (4.81 (0.96)). CONCLUSION: EVA may be useful for illustrating variations in the amplitude and time distribution of power output during cycling events. The specific race format influenced not only the overall time spent in various power bands, but also the acute time spent at these exercise intensities.

The power profile predicts road cycling MMP.

Laboratory tests of fitness variables have previously been shown to be valid predictors of cycling time-trial performance. However, due to the influence of drafting, tactics and the variability of power output in mass-start road races, comparisons between laboratory tests and competition performance are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the power produced in the laboratory Power Profile (PP) test and Maximum Mean Power (MMP) analysis of competition data. Ten male cyclists (mean+/-SD: 20.8+/-1.5 y, 67.3+/-5.5 kg, V O (2 max) 72.7+/-5.1 mL x kg (-1) x min (-1)) completed a PP test within 14 days of competing in a series of road races. No differences were found between PP results and MMP analysis of competition data for durations of 60-600 s, total work or estimates of critical power and the fixed amount of work that can be completed above critical power (W'). Self-selected cadence was 15+/-7 rpm higher in the lab. These results indicate that the PP test is an ecologically valid assessment of power producing capacity over cycling specific durations. In combination with MMP analysis, this may be a useful tool for quantifying elements of cycling specific performance in competitive cyclists.

Time course of haemoglobin mass during 21 days live high:train low simulated altitude.

The aim of this study was to determine the time course of changes in haemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)) in well-trained cyclists in response to live high:train low (LHTL). Twelve well-trained male cyclists participated in a 3-week LHTL protocol comprising 3,000 m simulated altitude for ~14 h/day. Prior to LHTL duplicate baseline measurements were made of Hb(mass), maximal oxygen consumption (VO(2max)) and serum erythropoietin (sEPO). Hb(mass) was measured weekly during LHTL and twice in the week thereafter. There was a 3.3% increase in Hb(mass) and no change in VO(2max) after LHTL. The mean Hb(mass) increased at a rate of ~1% per week and this was maintained in the week after cessation of LHTL. The sEPO concentration peaked after two nights of LHTL but there was only a trivial correlation (r = 0.04, P = 0.89) between the increase in sEPO and the increase in Hb(mass). Athletes seeking to gain erythropoietic benefits from moderate altitude need to spend >12 h/day in hypoxia.

Core temperature and hydration status during an Ironman triathlon.

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory based studies have documented that aggressive hydration strategies (approximately 1-2 litres/h) are required to minimise a rise in core temperature and minimise the deleterious effects of hyperthermia on performance. However, field data on the relations between hydration level, core body temperature, and performance are rare. OBJECTIVE: To measure core temperature (Tcore) in triathletes during a 226 km Ironman triathlon, and to compare Tcore with markers of hydration status after the event. METHOD: Before and immediately after the 2004 Ironman Western Australia event (mean (SD) ambient temperature 23.3 (1.9) degrees C (range 19-26 degrees C) and 60 (14)% relative humidity (44-87%)) body mass, plasma concentrations of sodium ([Na+]), potassium ([K+]), and chloride ([Cl-]), and urine specific gravity were measured in 10 well trained triathletes. Tcore was measured intermittently during the event using an ingestible pill telemetry system, and heart rate was measured throughout. RESULTS: Mean (SD) performance time in the Ironman triathlon was 611 (49) minutes; heart rate was 143 (9) beats/min (83 (6)% of maximum) and Tcore was 38.1 (0.3) degrees C. Body mass significantly declined during the race by 2.3 (1.2) kg (-3.0 (1.5)%; p < 0.05), whereas urine specific gravity significantly increased (1.011 (0.005) to 1.0170 (0.008) g/ml; p < 0.05) and plasma [Na+], [K+], and [Cl-] did not change. Changes in body mass were not related to finishing Tcore (r = -0.16), plasma [Na+] (r = 0.31), or urine specific gravity (r = -0.37). CONCLUSION: In contrast with previous laboratory based studies examining the influence of hypohydration on performance, a body mass loss of up to 3% was found to be tolerated by well trained triathletes during an Ironman competition in warm conditions without any evidence of thermoregulatory failure.

Accuracy of the Velotron ergometer and SRM power meter.

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter using a dynamic calibration rig over a range of exercise protocols commonly applied in laboratory settings. These trials included two sustained constant power trials (250 W and 414 W), two incremental power trials and three high-intensity interval power trials. To further compare the two systems, 15 subjects performed three dynamic 30 km performance time trials. The Velotron and SRM displayed accurate measurements of power during both constant power trials (<1% error). However, during high-intensity interval trials the Velotron and SRM were found to be less accurate (3.0%, CI=1.6-4.5% and -2.6%, CI=-3.2--2.0% error, respectively). During the dynamic 30 km time trials, power measured by the Velotron was 3.7+/-1.9% (CI=2.9-4.8%) greater than that measured by the SRM. In conclusion, the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter appears to be dependent on the type of test being performed. Furthermore, as each power monitoring system measures power at various positions (i.e. bottom bracket vs. rear wheel), caution should be taken when comparing power across the two systems, particularly when power is variable.