Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance

Mathew G. Wilson, Andy M. Lane, Chris J. Beedie, Abdulaziz Farooq

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of the study is to examine the impact of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon a 10-mile time trial (TT) performance and to quantify power output into a practically meaningful unit of variation. Seven well-trained cyclists completed four randomised bouts of a 10-mile TT on a SRM™ cycle ergometer. TTs were performed with (1) accurate performance feedback, (2) without performance feedback, (3) and (4) false negative and false positive 'split-time' feedback showing performance 5% slower or 5% faster than actual performance. There were no significant differences in completion time, average power output, heart rate or blood lactate between the four feedback conditions. There were significantly lower (p < 0.001) averageVO 2 (ml min -1) andVE (l min -1) scores in the false positive (3,485 ± 596; 119 ± 33) and accurate (3,471 ± 513; 117 ± 22) feedback conditions compared to the false negative (3,753 ± 410; 127 ± 27) and blind (3,772 ± 378; 124 ± 21) feedback conditions. Cyclists spent a greater amount of time in a '20 watt zone' 10 W either side of average power in the negative feedback condition (fastest) than the accurate feedback (slowest) condition (39.3 vs. 32.2%, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the 10-mile TT performance time between accurate and inaccurate feedback conditions, despite significantly lower averageVO 2 andVE scores in the false positive and accurate feedback conditions. Additionally, cycling with a small variation in power output (10 W either side of average power) produced the fastest TT. Further psycho-physiological research should examine the mechanism(s) why lowerVO 2 andVE scores are observed when cycling in a false positive or accurate feedback condition compared to a false negative or blind feedback condition.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)231-236
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology
Volume112
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lactic Acid
Heart Rate
Research

Cite this

Wilson, Mathew G. ; Lane, Andy M. ; Beedie, Chris J. ; Farooq, Abdulaziz. / Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. In: European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2012 ; Vol. 112, No. 1. pp. 231-236.
@article{7c7d192d36e142c0af0f1adaff60b818,
title = "Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance",
abstract = "The objective of the study is to examine the impact of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon a 10-mile time trial (TT) performance and to quantify power output into a practically meaningful unit of variation. Seven well-trained cyclists completed four randomised bouts of a 10-mile TT on a SRM™ cycle ergometer. TTs were performed with (1) accurate performance feedback, (2) without performance feedback, (3) and (4) false negative and false positive 'split-time' feedback showing performance 5{\%} slower or 5{\%} faster than actual performance. There were no significant differences in completion time, average power output, heart rate or blood lactate between the four feedback conditions. There were significantly lower (p < 0.001) averageVO 2 (ml min -1) andVE (l min -1) scores in the false positive (3,485 ± 596; 119 ± 33) and accurate (3,471 ± 513; 117 ± 22) feedback conditions compared to the false negative (3,753 ± 410; 127 ± 27) and blind (3,772 ± 378; 124 ± 21) feedback conditions. Cyclists spent a greater amount of time in a '20 watt zone' 10 W either side of average power in the negative feedback condition (fastest) than the accurate feedback (slowest) condition (39.3 vs. 32.2{\%}, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the 10-mile TT performance time between accurate and inaccurate feedback conditions, despite significantly lower averageVO 2 andVE scores in the false positive and accurate feedback conditions. Additionally, cycling with a small variation in power output (10 W either side of average power) produced the fastest TT. Further psycho-physiological research should examine the mechanism(s) why lowerVO 2 andVE scores are observed when cycling in a false positive or accurate feedback condition compared to a false negative or blind feedback condition.",
keywords = "Accurate and inaccurate feedback, Cycling performance, Pacing strategies",
author = "Wilson, {Mathew G.} and Lane, {Andy M.} and Beedie, {Chris J.} and Abdulaziz Farooq",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00421-011-1977-1",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "231--236",
journal = "European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. / Wilson, Mathew G.; Lane, Andy M.; Beedie, Chris J.; Farooq, Abdulaziz.

In: European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 112, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 231-236.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance

AU - Wilson, Mathew G.

AU - Lane, Andy M.

AU - Beedie, Chris J.

AU - Farooq, Abdulaziz

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - The objective of the study is to examine the impact of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon a 10-mile time trial (TT) performance and to quantify power output into a practically meaningful unit of variation. Seven well-trained cyclists completed four randomised bouts of a 10-mile TT on a SRM™ cycle ergometer. TTs were performed with (1) accurate performance feedback, (2) without performance feedback, (3) and (4) false negative and false positive 'split-time' feedback showing performance 5% slower or 5% faster than actual performance. There were no significant differences in completion time, average power output, heart rate or blood lactate between the four feedback conditions. There were significantly lower (p < 0.001) averageVO 2 (ml min -1) andVE (l min -1) scores in the false positive (3,485 ± 596; 119 ± 33) and accurate (3,471 ± 513; 117 ± 22) feedback conditions compared to the false negative (3,753 ± 410; 127 ± 27) and blind (3,772 ± 378; 124 ± 21) feedback conditions. Cyclists spent a greater amount of time in a '20 watt zone' 10 W either side of average power in the negative feedback condition (fastest) than the accurate feedback (slowest) condition (39.3 vs. 32.2%, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the 10-mile TT performance time between accurate and inaccurate feedback conditions, despite significantly lower averageVO 2 andVE scores in the false positive and accurate feedback conditions. Additionally, cycling with a small variation in power output (10 W either side of average power) produced the fastest TT. Further psycho-physiological research should examine the mechanism(s) why lowerVO 2 andVE scores are observed when cycling in a false positive or accurate feedback condition compared to a false negative or blind feedback condition.

AB - The objective of the study is to examine the impact of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon a 10-mile time trial (TT) performance and to quantify power output into a practically meaningful unit of variation. Seven well-trained cyclists completed four randomised bouts of a 10-mile TT on a SRM™ cycle ergometer. TTs were performed with (1) accurate performance feedback, (2) without performance feedback, (3) and (4) false negative and false positive 'split-time' feedback showing performance 5% slower or 5% faster than actual performance. There were no significant differences in completion time, average power output, heart rate or blood lactate between the four feedback conditions. There were significantly lower (p < 0.001) averageVO 2 (ml min -1) andVE (l min -1) scores in the false positive (3,485 ± 596; 119 ± 33) and accurate (3,471 ± 513; 117 ± 22) feedback conditions compared to the false negative (3,753 ± 410; 127 ± 27) and blind (3,772 ± 378; 124 ± 21) feedback conditions. Cyclists spent a greater amount of time in a '20 watt zone' 10 W either side of average power in the negative feedback condition (fastest) than the accurate feedback (slowest) condition (39.3 vs. 32.2%, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the 10-mile TT performance time between accurate and inaccurate feedback conditions, despite significantly lower averageVO 2 andVE scores in the false positive and accurate feedback conditions. Additionally, cycling with a small variation in power output (10 W either side of average power) produced the fastest TT. Further psycho-physiological research should examine the mechanism(s) why lowerVO 2 andVE scores are observed when cycling in a false positive or accurate feedback condition compared to a false negative or blind feedback condition.

KW - Accurate and inaccurate feedback

KW - Cycling performance

KW - Pacing strategies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856543248&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00421-011-1977-1

DO - 10.1007/s00421-011-1977-1

M3 - Article

VL - 112

SP - 231

EP - 236

JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology

JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 1

ER -