2006
DOI: 10.1080/17461390500422796
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variation in performance of elite cyclists from race to race

Abstract: The race-to-race variation in performance of a top athlete determines the smallest change in performance affecting the athlete's chances of winning. We report here the typical variation in competition times of elite cyclists in various race series. Repeated-measures analysis of log-transformed official race times provided the typical variation in a cyclist's performance as a coefficient of variation. The typical variation of a top cyclist (and its 95% likely limits) was 0.4% (0.3 Á/0.5%) in World Cup road race… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

9
88
2
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
9
88
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…2,3,5,6 Our finding that the better athletes (top 10) were less variable than all athletes as a group is consistent with those other studies. For example, the within-athlete variability of the top 50% of 1500-m to 10,000-m track runners was less than that of the bottom 50% (1.1% and 1.6%, respectively), 3 and these differences are very similar to those in the skiing events, which were of a comparable range in performance time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2,3,5,6 Our finding that the better athletes (top 10) were less variable than all athletes as a group is consistent with those other studies. For example, the within-athlete variability of the top 50% of 1500-m to 10,000-m track runners was less than that of the bottom 50% (1.1% and 1.6%, respectively), 3 and these differences are very similar to those in the skiing events, which were of a comparable range in performance time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…For example, the factor of wind direction and speed has been discussed in sports such as road cycling time trials and rowing. 2,5 In cross-country skiing, some important environmental factors to consider are the effect of differences in altitude, snow conditions, and race terrain. The slower mean performance times at moderate altitude (>1200 m) for all distance events in the current study were of a magnitude similar to those of elite 1500-to 10,000-m track runners (1.1-2.4%, when comparing performance below and above 1000 m), and these findings were attributed to reductions in partial pressure of oxygen in the inspired air and resultant decrease in aerobic power.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trained cyclists or runners may hope to benefit from the use of a sports nutrition supplement during out-ofdoors, real-world exercise conditions if it produces an effect under laboratory-controlled exercise conditions that is 1.3-1.6% (Hopkins et al, 1999;Hopkins & Hewson, 2001;Paton & Hopkins, 2006) greater than the effect of the placebo. In this meta-analysis, it was demonstrated that QS confers an increase in EP that is much less than this efficacy threshold, thereby indicating that it is unlikely to confer any worthwhile ergogenic value, at least within the length of supplementation used and quercetin doses provided by the actual studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on average typical variations of 2.6% (Hopkins & Hewson, 2001), 1.3% (Paton & Hopkins, 2006), and 5% (Katch, Sady, & Freedson, 1982) for trained athletes' running times, trained athletes' cycling times, and trained/untrained individuals' VO 2max , respectively, and a product factor of 0.5, as recommended by Hopkins et al (1999), the smallest worthwhile percentage changes in running EP, cycling EP, and VO 2max were set at 1.3%, 1.6%, and 2.5%, respectively.…”
Section: Smallest Worthwhile Effect Of Qs On Ep and Vo 2maxmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data for time to completion were analyzed between conditions using magnitude based inferences by calculating the percentage difference ±90% confidence limits (Hopkins, 2006). Chances that the true value of the statistic was positive, trivial or negative relative to the smallest important value (1%; (Paton & Hopkins, 2006) was based on the following scale: <0.5%, almost certainly not; <5%, very unlikely; <25%, unlikely, probably not; 25-75%, possibly, possibly not; >75%, likely, probably; >95%, very likely; >99.5%, almost certainly (Hopkins, 2006). When there was a >5% chance of the statistic being both positive and negative, the effect was deemed unclear.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%