The reliability of a simulated uphill time trial using the Velotron electronic bicycle ergometer

Abstract

This study was conducted to measure the reliability of an indoor uphill time trial (TT) using the Velotron electronic bicycle ergometer with a computer-generated pacer that represented a subject's prior TT performance. A total of 12 trained cyclists (42 ± 7.79 years, 63.0 ± 6.12 ml/kg/min) completed three 8-mile uphill TT with 2-7 days between subsequent tests. A repeated measure ANOVA found no difference between finishing times for TT1 (2,154 ± 246 s) and TT2 (2,078 ± 185 s, p = 0.055) or TT2 and TT3 (2,047 ± 167 s, p = 0.075). All measures of reliability showed an increased reliability for finishing times in TT2-TT3 [95% CI for: coefficient of variation (CV) = 1.0-2.3%, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.953-0.996, standard error of measurement (SEM) = 2.1-4.9 s] versus TT1-TT2 (95% CI for: CV = 2.0-4.9%, ICC = 0.827-0.986, SEM = 9.8-23 s). An uphill TT using the Velotron bicycle ergometer with a prior performance as a pacer is a reliable assessment for indoor TT performance testing, but a familiarization trial improves reliability. Although there were no significant differences found for completion times between TT1-TT2 or TT2-TT3, the absolute mean differences, small sample size and low p values may be suggestive of a Type II error.

Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1km cycling time trial performance

“…The findings are consistent with previous research and recent performance models 3,16,17 . The magnitudes of improvement from fastest baseline to competitor trial, of 2.8% in power output and 1.4% in performance times are also comparable with previous research using the presence of competitors, of 1.0-1.7% during 2-km and 4-km TTs in trained cyclists 3,16 .…”

“…Alterations in power distribution, different to previous performance during an alone time trial, regardless of its time of occurrence, reflect a reactive decision to employ a strategy, different from originally thought optimal 20 . Whilst benefits upon performance have been found during simulations of competitive TTs using visual avatars as pacers 16,17 , the influence of direct competition on behavioural responses has not been elucidated. Previous methods restricted the isolation of specific competitor influences, as they provided additional performance feedback, offered rewards encouraging external motivation, and provided pacing cues in using a previous performance as the opponent 17 .…”

“…Whilst benefits upon performance have been found during simulations of competitive TTs using visual avatars as pacers 16,17 , the influence of direct competition on behavioural responses has not been elucidated. Previous methods restricted the isolation of specific competitor influences, as they provided additional performance feedback, offered rewards encouraging external motivation, and provided pacing cues in using a previous performance as the opponent 17 . Similarly, a faster performance time found when employing a deceptive performance manipulation to competitor representing a previous performance16, without examining the psychological influences, leaves the true effects of competitor presence unclear.…”

“…Performance time improvements evidenced during competitive time trials (TT) have been due to altered pacing strategies 3,16 . The consistency of pacing strategies, when performing alone, in TT is robust 17,18 , and is inclusive of an increased speed at the end of the trial, 'endspurt', to complete the trial in the shortest time 19 . However, athletes have been found to increase their finishing speed further to beat a competitor 3,16 .…”

Familiarization Protocol Influences Reproducibility of 20-km Cycling Time-Trial Performance in Novice Participants

“…Therefore, it was expected that findings would give a better indication of the number of trials needed before reproducibility is obtained in novice participants. In support of our finding, trained cyclists have exhibited continued improvement after a second 8-mile TT (Noreen et al, 2010). However, as recent experience was lacking in these participants, it is possible that they needed to be re-familiarized, and the use of a pacer may have also influenced motivation.…”