1KU Leuven, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven, BELGIUM; and 2Centre for Sports and Exercise Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UNITED KINGDOM.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Mar;49(3):588-594. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001115.
To understand how athletes invest their energy over a race, differences in pacing ability between athletes with and without intellectual impairment (II) were explored using a novel field test.
Well-trained runners (n = 67) participated in this study, including 34 runners with II (age = 24.4 ± 4.5 yr; IQ = 63.1 ± 7.7) and 33 runners without II (age = 31.4 ± 11.2 yr). The ability to perform at a preplanned submaximal pace was assessed. Two 400-m running trials were performed on an athletics track, with an individually standardized velocity. In the first trial, the speed was imposed by auditory signals given in 20-40 m intervals, in combination with coach feedback during the initial 200 m. The participant was instructed to maintain this velocity without any feedback during the final 200 m. In trial 2, no coach feedback was permitted.
Repeated-measures analyses revealed a significant between-group effect. II runners deviated more from the target time than runners without II. The significant trial-group interaction effect (F = 4.15, P < 0.05) revealed that the ability to self-regulate the pace during the final 200 m improved for runners without II (trial 1, 1.7 ± 1.0 s; trial 2, 0.9 ± 0.8 s), whereas the II runners deviated even more in trial 2 (4.4 ± 4.3 s) than that in trial 1 (3.2 ± 3.9 s).
Our findings support the assumption that intellectual capacity is involved in pacing. It is demonstrated that II runners have difficulties maintaining a preplanned submaximal velocity, and this study contributes to understanding problems II exercisers might experience when exercising. With this field test, we can assess the effect of II on pacing and performance in individual athletes which will lead to a fair Paralympic classification procedure.
为了了解运动员在比赛中如何分配体力，本研究使用一种新的现场测试来探索智力障碍（II）运动员和无智力障碍运动员之间的配速能力差异。
本研究纳入了 67 名训练有素的跑步运动员，其中包括 34 名 II 运动员（年龄=24.4±4.5 岁；智商=63.1±7.7）和 33 名无 II 运动员（年龄=31.4±11.2 岁）。评估了以预定的亚最大速度进行运动的能力。运动员在田径场上进行了两次 400 米跑步测试，速度是通过每 20-40 米间隔发出的听觉信号与教练在最初 200 米时的反馈相结合来施加的。在最后 200 米时，运动员被要求在没有任何反馈的情况下保持此速度。在试验 2 中，不允许教练提供反馈。
重复测量分析显示存在显著的组间效应。与无 II 的运动员相比，II 运动员偏离目标时间的程度更大。显著的试验组间交互作用效应（F=4.15，P<0.05）表明，无 II 的运动员在最后 200 米自我调节速度的能力有所提高（试验 1，1.7±1.0 秒；试验 2，0.9±0.8 秒），而 II 运动员在试验 2（4.4±4.3 秒）中的偏差甚至比试验 1（3.2±3.9 秒）更大。
我们的研究结果支持智力能力与配速有关的假设。研究表明，II 运动员难以保持预定的亚最大速度，本研究有助于了解 II 运动员在运动时可能遇到的问题。通过这种现场测试，我们可以评估 II 对个体运动员配速和表现的影响，从而实现公平的残奥会分级程序。
