Abstract:VO2 kinetics in intermittent exercise over a range of duty-cycle durations tended to associate with blood [lactate] profiles, similarly to previous demonstrations for sustained constant-load exercise.
“…5) it is likely that the duty cycle employed in this study (1:1.5 ratio with 37-43 s work intervals at *106% P max and a recovery interval at *53% P max ) was close to a tolerable maximum. This assertion is supported by the findings of Turner et al (2006), who showed participants could adhere to a 30-min intermittent cycling bout comprising of 30-s supramaximal exercise and 60-s recovery, but maintaining the same work:recovery ratio and increasing the duration of the supramaximal interval to 60 s led to premature exercise termination, an augmented _ VO 2 response and a progressive accumulation in blood lactate.…”
It has been proposed that an even-pacing strategy is optimal for events lasting <120 s, but this assertion is not well-established. This study tested the hypothesis that even-paced cycling is less challenging than self- or variable-paced cycling. Ten well-trained male cyclists (VO2max, 4.89 ± 0.32 L min(-1)) completed a self-paced (SP) 20-km time trial followed by time- and work-matched even-paced (EP 100% SP mean power) and variable-paced (VP 142 and 72% SP mean power, 1:1.5 high:low power ratio) trials in a random, counterbalanced order. During all trials expired air and heart rate were analysed throughout, blood lactate was sampled every 4 km, and perceptual responses (rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect) were assessed every 2 km and post-trial. There were no whole trial statistically significant differences between trials for any of the respiratory variables measured, although there was a trend for higher RER's in VP compared to EP (P = 0.053). Blood lactate was lower in EP compared to VP (P = 0.001) and SP (P = 0.001), and higher in SP compared to VP (P = 0.008). RPE was lower, and affect more positive, in EP compared to both SP and VP (P > 0.05). The results of this study show that, for a time- and work-matched 20-km time trial, an even-paced strategy results in attenuated perturbations in the physiological response and lower perception of effort in comparison to self- and variable-paced strategies.
“…5) it is likely that the duty cycle employed in this study (1:1.5 ratio with 37-43 s work intervals at *106% P max and a recovery interval at *53% P max ) was close to a tolerable maximum. This assertion is supported by the findings of Turner et al (2006), who showed participants could adhere to a 30-min intermittent cycling bout comprising of 30-s supramaximal exercise and 60-s recovery, but maintaining the same work:recovery ratio and increasing the duration of the supramaximal interval to 60 s led to premature exercise termination, an augmented _ VO 2 response and a progressive accumulation in blood lactate.…”
It has been proposed that an even-pacing strategy is optimal for events lasting <120 s, but this assertion is not well-established. This study tested the hypothesis that even-paced cycling is less challenging than self- or variable-paced cycling. Ten well-trained male cyclists (VO2max, 4.89 ± 0.32 L min(-1)) completed a self-paced (SP) 20-km time trial followed by time- and work-matched even-paced (EP 100% SP mean power) and variable-paced (VP 142 and 72% SP mean power, 1:1.5 high:low power ratio) trials in a random, counterbalanced order. During all trials expired air and heart rate were analysed throughout, blood lactate was sampled every 4 km, and perceptual responses (rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect) were assessed every 2 km and post-trial. There were no whole trial statistically significant differences between trials for any of the respiratory variables measured, although there was a trend for higher RER's in VP compared to EP (P = 0.053). Blood lactate was lower in EP compared to VP (P = 0.001) and SP (P = 0.001), and higher in SP compared to VP (P = 0.008). RPE was lower, and affect more positive, in EP compared to both SP and VP (P > 0.05). The results of this study show that, for a time- and work-matched 20-km time trial, an even-paced strategy results in attenuated perturbations in the physiological response and lower perception of effort in comparison to self- and variable-paced strategies.
“…An explanation for such a difference between mechanical and physiological variation can be explained partly, due to a musclelung vascular transit delay pushing the rising phases of short bursts of effort into recovery phases or in this Table II. Mean + s for performance, mechanical and physiological measures sampled throughout the field trial and separated based on terrain (hill (H) and downhill (DH)) and order as depicted in case blunting the response of lower power output bouts (Hurst & Atkins, 2006;Turner et al, 2006). The effects of downhill cross country mountain biking on the dissociation between power output and HR have been attributed to increased energy demands of movements not associated with pedalling but rather negotiating the course (Gregory et al, 2007;Stapelfeldt et al, 2004).…”
The purpose was to assess the mechanical work and physiological responses to cross country mountain bike racing. Participants (n = 7) cycled on a cross country track at race speed whilst VO2, power, cadence, speed, and geographical position were recorded. Mean power during the designated start section (68.5 ± 5.5 s) was 481 ± 122 W, incurring an O2 deficit of 1.58 ± 0.67 L - min(-1) highlighting a significant initial anaerobic (32.4 ± 10.2%) contribution. Complete lap data produced mean (243 ± 12 W) and normalised (279 ± 15 W) power outputs with 13.3 ± 6.1 and 20.7 ± 8.3% of time spent in high force-high velocity and high force-low velocity, respectively. This equated to, physiological measures for %VO(2max) (77 ± 5%) and % HR(max) (93 ± 2%). Terrain (uphill vs downhill) significantly (P < 0.05) influenced power output (70.9 ± 7.5 vs. 41.0 ± 9.2% W(max)),the distribution of low velocity force production, VO2 (80 ± 1.7 vs. 72 ± 3.7%) and cadence (76 + 2 vs. 55 ± 4 rpm) but not heart rate (93.8 ± 2.3 vs. 91.3 ± 0.6% HR(max)) and led to a significant difference between anaerobic contribution and terrain (uphill, 6.4 ± 3.0 vs. downhill, 3.2 ± 1.8%, respectively) but not aerobic energy contribution. Both power and cadence were highly variable through all sections resulting in one power surge every 32 s and a supra-maximal effort every 106 s. The results show that cross country mountain bike racing consists of predominantly low velocity pedalling with a large high force component and when combined with a high oscillating work rate, necessitates high aerobic energy provision, with intermittent anaerobic contribution. Additional physical stress during downhill sections affords less recovery emphasised by physiological variables remaining high throughout.
“…Turner et al (2006) compared the physiological responses to repetitions at the same intensity (120% _ VO 2max ) and work:rest ratio (1:2), but of varying duration. They found short work intervals of 30 s or less, were tolerated for 30 min with no sign of fatigue.…”
A systems modelling approach has been used to quantify the dose-response nature of training. Considerable attention has been focused on the modelling process with little work on the determination of the training impulse (TRIMP) scores. Currently, the methods employed to calculate TRIMPs are subject to various limitations including the use of generic ordinal category or exponential weighting factors for higher exercise intensities. These weightings are necessary to prevent excessively high scores from long duration, low intensity bouts of exercise. We propose a new method to calculate TRIMP scores based upon a whole body bioenergetic model. Our method is individual specific, removing many of the previous limitations. Furthermore, this model could enable a greater comparison of continuous and interval training methods. This model takes into account the length of repetition(s), concentration of the interval session and mode of recovery. This approach, while requiring further research, offers a potential improvement in the accuracy of training load calculations.
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.