Augmenting performance feedback does not affect 4 km cycling time-trials in the heat

Abstract

We compared the effects of (1) accurate and (2) surreptitiously augmented performance feedback on power output and physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in the heat. Nine cyclists completed a baseline (BaseL) 4000 m time-trial in ambient temperatures of 30°C, followed by two further 4000 m time-trials at the same temperature, randomly assigning the participants to an accurate (ACC; accurate feedback of baseline) or deceived (DEC; 2% increase above baseline) feedback group. The total power output (PO) and aerobic (Paer) and anaerobic (Pan) contributions were determined at 0.4 km stages during the time-trials, alongside measurements of rectal (Trec) and skin (Tskin) temperatures. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in any of the variables between BaseL, ACC and DEC, despite increases (P < 0.05) in Trec and Tskin. Typical pacing profiles were demonstrated; however, there was no interaction (P > 0.05) between feedback condition and time-trial stage. Providing surreptitiously augmented performance feedback to well-trained cyclists did not alter their performance or physiological responses to a 4000 m time-trial in a hot environment. The assumed influence of augmented performance feedback was nullified in the heat, perhaps reflecting a central down-regulation of exercise intensity in response to an increased body temperature.

The Influence of Mid-Event Deception on Psychophysiological Status and Pacing Can Persist across Consecutive Disciplines and Enhance Self-paced Multi-modal Endurance Performance

“…The current study findings therefore extend those of previous deception research to offer further evidence that expectations and beliefs regarding a particular exercise task and/or intervention are likely to influence athletes' perception of internal and external stimuli, and the subsequent conscious (anticipatory) pacing decisions they make in attempting to optimize performance (Micklewright et al, 2010; Stone et al, 2012; Taylor and Smith, 2014; Williams et al, 2014, 2015; Waldron et al, 2015; Shei et al, 2016). It has been speculated that this is the case during multi-modal exercise (Hausswirth et al, 1999), with previous simulated triathlon studies finding that a relatively aggressive mid-event (i.e., cycling) pacing strategy leads to subsequent reductions in running performance (Hausswirth et al, 1999; Suriano and Bishop, 2010).…”

Effect of Environmental and Feedback Interventions on Pacing Profiles in Cycling: A Meta-Analysis

“…Due to the nature of heat intervention trials, the blinding of participants is not possible, however in other conditions it is possible to blind participants to the intervention condition and in eleven studies this was the case. In these studies participants were blinded to a manipulation in: oxygen availability ( n = 4) (Amann et al, 2006; Clark et al, 2007; Tucker et al, 2007; Périard and Racinais, 2016), pre-cooling ( n = 1) (Barwood et al, 2012) and feedback ( n = 6) (Albertus et al, 2005; Castle et al, 2012; Waldron et al, 2015; Jones et al, 2016a,b; Shei et al, 2016). Only one study implemented a double-blind design (Clark et al, 2007).…”

“…Overall and trial section MPO was extracted from three studies that provided three data points per section (Albertus et al, 2005; Castle et al, 2012; Waldron et al, 2015). There was no significant change in trial MPO when cyclists were provided with positive deceptive feedback (MD = 2.45 W, 95% CI = −35.31 to 40.20, p = 0.899).…”

“…Two data points per trial section MPO and for the whole trial MPO were extracted from two studies (Jones et al, 2016b; Waldron et al, 2015). Figure 9 shows that neutral feedback, where feedback was accurately given or where participants raced a virtual on-screen avatar that accurately represented the MPO of a previous performance, did not statistically influence overall MPO (MD = 4.32 W, 95% CI = −5.21 to 13.86, p = 0.374).…”

Oral l-menthol reduces thermal sensation, increases work-rate and extends time to exhaustion, in the heat at a fixed rating of perceived exertion

“…This could relate to a deprioritising of afferent cues from the oral cavity when homoeostasis is challenged through core and skin temperature increases, thus generating stronger afferent feedback. Indeed, it has been suggested that acute threats to thermal homeostasis are prioritised, such that they override the ergogenic effects of external cueing, such as deceptive feedback (Waldron et al 2014) and nullify the effects of mental fatigue (Van Cutsem et al 2017).…”