In pursuit of optimal performance, athletes and physical exercisers alike have to make decisions about how and when to invest their energy. The process of pacing has been associated with the goal-directed regulation of exercise intensity across an exercise bout. The current review explores divergent views on understanding underlying mechanisms of decision-making in pacing. Current pacing literature provides a wide range of aspects that might be involved in the determination of an athlete's pacing-strategy, but lack in explaining how perception and action are coupled in establishing behaviour. In contrast, decision-making literature rooted in the understanding that perception and action are coupled provides refreshing perspectives on explaining the mechanisms that underlie natural interactive behaviour. Contrary to the assumption of behaviour that is managed by a higher order governor that passively constructs internal representations of the world, an ecological approach is considered. According to this approach, knowledge is rooted in the direct experience of meaningful environmental objects and events in individual-environment processes. To assist a neuropsychological explanation of decision-making in exercise-regulation, the relevance of the affordance competition hypothesis is explored. By considering pacing as a behavioural expression of continuous decision-making, new insights on underlying mechanisms in pacing and optimal performance can be developed.3
Introduction: To achieve personal goals in exercise task completion, exercisers have to regulate, distribute, and manage their effort. In endurance sports, it has become very commonplace for athletes to consult task-related feedback on external devices to do so. The aim of the present study was to explore the importance of the presence of this information by examining the influence of the absence of commonly available task-related feedback on effort distribution and performance in experienced endurance athletes.Methods: A 20-km cycling time trial was performed. Twenty Participants from a homogenous cyclist population were appointed to a group that did not receive any feedback (NoF), or a group that could consult task-related feedback (i.e., speed, heart rate, power output, cadence, elapsed time, and elapsed distance) continuously during their trial (FF).Results: The distribution of power output (PO) differed between groups. Most evident is the spurt at the end of the trial of FF, which was not incorporated by NoF. Nevertheless, no between-group differences were found in performance time (FF: 28.86 ± 3.68 vs. NoF: 30.95 ± 2.77 min) and mean PO controlled by body mass (FF: 3.61 ± 0.60 vs. NoF: 3.43 ± 0.38 W/kg). Also, no differences in rating of perceived exertion scores were found.Conclusion: The current study provides a first indication that prior knowledge of task demands together with reliance on bodily and environmental information can be sufficient for experienced athletes to come to comparable time trial performances. This questions the necessity of the presence of in-race instantaneous task-related feedback via external devices for maximizing performance. Moreover, it seems that different pacing strategies emerge depending on sources of information available to experienced athletes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.