Cycling in the Absence of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Pacing and Performance

Abstract

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.

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

“…These articles were evaluated according to the specified inclusion criteria (Figure 1) and we identified 26 studies with a total number of 351 subjects that met all inclusion criteria. Almost all studies used a randomized cross-over design, except for studies (Williams et al, 2012; Jones et al, 2016a,b; Schmit et al, 2016; Smits et al, 2016) which used a parallel group design.…”

“…Data points were extracted from three different comparisons and three separate investigations (Swart et al, 2009; Williams et al, 2012; Smits et al, 2016). In these studies, where all visual and verbal performance feedback was withheld, no significant changes in power output were found (MD = 11.34 W, 95% CI = −12.67 to 35.34, p = 0.355).…”

Mental Fatigue Alters Cortical Activation and Psychological Responses, Impairing Performance in a Distance-Based Cycling Trial

“…Therefore, supporting this previous running study (Pageaux et al, 2014 ) these results showed that mental fatigue impaired the TT 20km performance without changing the pacing profile of recreational cyclists. However, we must highlight that the robust pacing profile observed in these mental fatigue studies may have been a result of the available distance feedback (Smits et al, 2016 ), so that future studies are required to verify how mental fatigue may affect pacing regulation when the feedback of distance is unavailable. Importantly, the present results provided insights into how mental fatigue may impact cycling pacing and performance in recreational cyclists, as most of them combine high-load aerobic training programs with a strict-life style (food intake, alcohol consumption, etc.)…”

Investigating the relationship between cognitions, pacing strategies and performance in 16.1 km cycling time trials using a think aloud protocol

“…Recent research has applied decision-making and metacognitive theories to this pacing field to provide a framework by which these cognitive processes can be explored (see Brick et al, 2016;Renfree et al, 2014;Smits, Pepping & Hettinga, 2014). Research has supported the influence of previous experience (Micklewright, Papadopoulou, Swart & Noakes, 2010), competitor influence (Corbett, Barwood, Ouzounoglou, Thelwell, & Dicks, 2012;Williams, Jones, & Sparks, et al, 2015) and performance feedback (Jones, Williams & Marchant, et al, 2016;Smits, Polman & Otten, Pepping & Hettinga, 2016;Mauger, Jones & Williams, 2009b) on pacing decisions and provided further mechanistic support of constructs such as perceived exertion (Marcora & Staiano, 2010) and affect (Jones, Williams & Marchant, et al, 2014;Renfree et al, 2014). However, intermittent measures of such constructs do not provide the sensitivity of measurement to identify the continuous changes in cognition that occur during a competitive endurance task.…”