No abstract

Purpose. To understand how athletes invest their energy over a race, differences in pacing ability between athletes with and without intellectual impairment (II) were explored using a novel field test. Methods. Well-trained runners (n=67) participated in this study, including 34 runners with II (age = 24.4 ± 4.5 years; IQ = 63.1 ± 7.7) and 33 runners without II (age = 31.4 ± 11.2 years).The ability to perform at a pre-planned submaximal pace was assessed. Two 400m running trials were performed on an athletics track, with an individually standardized velocity. In the first trial, the speed was imposed by auditory signals given in 20m-40m intervals, in combination with coach-feedback during the initial 200m. The participant was instructed to maintain this velocity without any feedback during the final 200m. In trial 2, no coach-feedback was permitted.Results. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant between-groups effect. II-runners deviated more from the target time than runners without II. The significant trial x group interaction effect (F = 4.15, p<.05) revealed that the ability to self-regulate the pace during the final 200m improved for runners without II (Trial 1: 1.7 ± 1.0s, Trial 2: 0.9 ±0.8s) whereas the II-runners deviated even more in Trial 2 (4.4 ± 4.3s), than in Trial 1 (3.2 ± 3.9s). Conclusion.Our findings support the assumption that intellectual capacity is involved in pacing. It is demonstrated that II-runners have difficulties maintaining a preplanned submaximal velocity, and this study contributes to understanding problems II-exercisers might experience when exercising. With this field test, we can assess the impact of II on pacing and performance in individual athletes which will lead to a fair Paralympic classification-procedure.

Pacing has been defined as the goal-directed regulation of exercise intensity over an exercise bout, in which athletes need to decide how and when to invest their energy. The purpose of this study was to explore if the regulation of exercise intensity during competitive track races is different between runners with and without intellectual impairment, which is characterized by significant limitations in intellectual functioning (IQ ≤ 75) and adaptive behavioral deficits, diagnosed before the age of 18. The samples included elite runners with intellectual impairment (N = 36) and a comparison group of world class runners without impairment (N = 39), of which 47 were 400 m runners (all male) and 28 were 1500 m-runners (15 male and 13 female). Pacing was analyzed by means of 100 m split times (for 400 m races) and 200 m split times (for 1500 m races). Based on the split times, the average velocity was calculated for four segments of the races. Velocity fluctuations were defined as the differences in velocity between consecutive race segments. A mixed model ANOVA revealed significant differences in pacing profiles between runners with and without intellectual impairment (p < 0.05). Maximal velocity of elite 400 m runners with intellectual impairment in the first race segment (7.9 ± 0.3 m/s) was well below the top-velocity reached by world level 400 m runners without intellectual impairment (8.9 ± 0.2 m/s), and their overall pace was slower (F = 120.7, p < 0.05). In addition, both groups followed a different pacing profile and inter-individual differences in pacing profiles were larger, with differences most pronounced for 1500 m races. Whereas, male 1500 m-runners without intellectual impairment reached a high velocity in the first 100 m (7.2 ± 0.1 m/s), slowly decelerated in the second race segment (−0.6 ± 0.1 m/s), and finished with an end sprint (+0.9 ± 0.1 m/s); the 1500 m runners with intellectual impairment started slower (6.1 ± 0.3 m/s), accelerated in the second segment (+0.2 ± 0.7 m/s), and then slowly decreased until the finish (F = 6.8, p < 0.05). Our findings support the hypothesis that runners with intellectual impairment have difficulties to efficiently self-regulate their exercise intensity. Their limited cognitive resources may constrain the successful integration of appropriate pacing strategies during competitive races.

Cognition is important in many sports, for example, making split-second-decisions under pressure, or memorising complex movement sequences. The dual-task (DT) paradigm is an ecologically valid approach for the assessment of cognitive function in conjunction with motor demands. This study aimed to determine the impact of impaired intelligence on DT performance. The motor task required balancing on one leg on a beam, and the cognitive task was a multiple-object-tracking (MOT) task assessing dynamic visual-search capacity. The sample included 206 well-trained athletes with and without intellectual impairment (II), matched for sport, age and training volume (140 males, 66 females, M age = 23.2 ± 4.1 years, M training experience = 12.3 ± 5.7 years). In the single-task condition, II-athletes showed reduced balance control (F = 55.9, P < .001, η = .23) and reduced MOT (F = 86.3, P < .001, η = .32) compared to the control group. A mixed-model ANCOVA revealed significant differences in DT performance for the balance and the MOT task between both groups. The DT costs were significantly larger for the II-athletes (-8.28% versus -1.34% for MOT and -33.13% versus -12.89% for balance). The assessment of MOT in a DT paradigm provided insight in how impaired intelligence constrains the ability of II-athletes to successfully perform at the highest levels in the complex and dynamical sport-environment.