Using Deception to Establish a Reproducible Improvement in 4-Km Cycling Time Trial Performance

Renjay Shei, Kevin THOMPSON, Robert Chapman, John Raglin, Timothy Mickleborough

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    18 Citations (Scopus)


    We investigated whether performance gains achieved with deception persisted after the deception was revealed, and whether pacing strategy changed. 14 trained cyclists completed 4 simulated 4-km time trials (TT) on a cycle ergometer comprising familiarization and baseline trials (BAS), followed by "unaware" (of deception, UAW) and "aware" (of deception, AW) trials on separate days. In the UAW trial, participants competed against an on-screen avatar set at 102% of their baseline trial mean power output (Pmean) believing it was set at 100% of BAS Pmean. 24 h prior to the AW trial, participants were informed of the deception in the UAW trial. 4 participants did not improve in the UAW trial compared to BAS. 10 participants improved time to completion (TTC) and Pmean in the UAW and AW trials compared to BAS (p0.05) for these participants. In summary, deception did not improve performance in all participants. However, participants whose time trial performance improved following deception could retain their performance gains once the deception was revealed, demonstrating a similar pacing strategy and RPE response.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)341-346
    Number of pages6
    JournalInternational Journal of Sports Medicine
    Issue number5
    Publication statusPublished - 8 Feb 2016


    Dive into the research topics of 'Using Deception to Establish a Reproducible Improvement in 4-Km Cycling Time Trial Performance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this