Children’s Health & Exercise Research Centre, Sport & Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Br J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;46(1):49-53. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090257. Epub 2011 Nov 8.
To determine the importance of the provision of external exercise information to the setting of the pacing strategy, in subjects unfamiliar with a cycling task.
Twenty-two healthy, untrained cyclists (VO(2max), 50 ± 9 mL-(1)·kg-(1)·min-(1)) were randomly assigned to a control (CON) group or an experimental (EXP) group and two successive 4 km time trials (TT) were performed, separated by a 17 min recovery. The CON group received distance knowledge and distance feedback; the EXP group received neither, but knew that each TT was to be of the same distance.
No significant difference in completion time (p>0.05) was observed between the groups for either time to complete TT one (TT1) (CON=443 ± 33 s versus EXP=471 ± 63 s) or time to complete TT two (time trial 2) (CON=461 ± 37 s versus EXP=501 ± 94 s). No significant difference in the final RPE was observed between groups. However, a significant interaction for RPE (rating of perceived exertion)×TT in the CON was observed (F7,70=5.32, p<0.05), with significantly higher RPE values in the final kilometre of TT2 (p<0.05).
The lack of any performance improvement in either group, despite the differences in exercise information received, indicates both a reliance on the afferent feedback for setting a pacing strategy and slow learning effect from practice in subjects unfamiliar with the task. The modification in RPE profile observed in the CON, despite no performance improvement, suggests exercise perception based changes may pre-empt work rate based changes and thus not immediately translate to improved performance.
确定向不熟悉骑车任务的受试者提供外部运动信息对设定起搏策略的重要性。
22 名健康、未经训练的自行车运动员(VO(2max),50±9 mL-(1)·kg-(1)·min-(1))被随机分配到对照组(CON)或实验组(EXP),并进行了两次连续的 4km 计时赛(TT),两次 TT 之间间隔 17 分钟恢复期。CON 组接受距离知识和距离反馈;EXP 组没有接受任何信息,但知道每个 TT 的距离都相同。
对于 TT1(CON=443±33s 与 EXP=471±63s)或 TT2(时间试验 2)(CON=461±37s 与 EXP=501±94s)的完成时间,两组之间没有显著差异(p>0.05)。两组的最终 RPE 没有显著差异。然而,在 CON 中观察到 RPE(感知努力评分)×TT 的显著交互作用(F7,70=5.32,p<0.05),TT2 的最后一公里的 RPE 值显著升高(p<0.05)。
尽管两组接收到的运动信息存在差异,但都没有任何表现上的提高,这表明受试者在设定起搏策略时依赖传入反馈,并且在不熟悉任务的情况下,从实践中获得的学习效果较慢。在 CON 中观察到的 RPE 谱的变化,尽管没有表现上的提高,但表明运动感知的变化可能先于工作率的变化,因此不会立即转化为更好的表现。