You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original articles
Relative importance of pacing strategy and mean power output in 1500-m self-paced cycling
  1. F J Hettinga1,2,
  2. J J de Koning1,3,
  3. M Hulleman1,
  4. C Foster3
  1. 1Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen/University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, LaCrosse, Wisconsin, USA
  1. Correspondence to Florentina J. Hettinga, Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen/University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, NL-9713 DK, Groningen, The Netherlands; f.j.hettinga{at}med.umcg.nl

Abstract

Introduction Both mean power output (MPO) and the distribution of the available energy over the race, that is, pacing strategy, are critical factors in performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of both pacing strategy and MPO to performance.

Methods Six well-trained, regionally competitive cyclists performed four 1500-m ergometer time trials (∼2 min). For each subject, the fastest (Fast) and slowest (Slow) time trials were compared and the relative importance of differences in power output and pacing strategy were determined with an energy flow model.

Results The difference in final time between Fast and Slow was 4.0 (2.5) s. Fast was performed with a higher MPO (437.8 (32.3) W vs 411.3 (39.0) W), a higher aerobic peak power (295.3 (36.8) vs 287.5 (34.7) W) and a higher anaerobic peak power (828.8 (145.4) W vs 649.5 (112.2) W) combined with a relatively higher, but not statistically different anaerobic rate constant (0.051 (0.016) vs 0.041 (0.009) W). The changes in MPO (63% anaerobic, 37% aerobic) largely explained the differences in final times. Athletes chose a different pacing strategy that was close to optimal for their physiological condition in both Fast and Slow.

Conclusion Differences in intraindividual performance were mainly caused by differences in MPO. Athletes seemed to be able to effectively adjust their pacing profile based on their “status of the day”.

Keywords modelling performance, energy expenditure, aerobic, anaerobic, sports.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.064261

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval The protocol was approved by the university human subjects committee of the University of LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.