Hibbert Andrew W, Billaut François, Varley Matthew C, Polman Remco C J
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria UniversityMelbourne, VIC, Australia.
College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria UniversityMelbourne, VIC, Australia.
Front Physiol. 2017 Jul 20;8:488. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00488. eCollection 2017.
Exercise performance is reproducible in experienced athletes; however, less trained participants exhibit greater variability in performance and pacing. To reduce variability, it is common practice to complete a familiarization prior to experimental testing. However, there are no clear guidelines for familiarizing novice participants to a cycling time-trial (TT), and research findings from novice populations may still be influenced by learning effects. Accordingly, the aims of this study were to establish the variability between TTs after administering differing familiarization protocols (duration or type) and to establish the number of familiarization trials required to limit variability over multiple trials. Thirty recreationally active participants, with no prior experience of a TT, performed a 20-km cycling TT on five separate occasions, after completing either a (FF, 20-km TT, = 10), a (HF, 10-km TT, = 10) or an familiarization (EF, 5-min cycling, = 10). Variability of TT duration across five TTs was the lowest after completing FF ( = 0.69, η = 0.05) compared to HF ( = 0.08, η = 0.26) and EF ( = 0.07, η = 0.21). In the FF group after TT2, the effect size for changes in TT duration was small ( < 0.49). There were large differences between later TTs in HF ( = 1.02, TT3-TT4) and EF ( = 1.12, TT4-TT5). The variability in mean power output profiles between trials was lowest within FF, with a similar pacing profile reproduced between TT3-TT5. Familiarization of the exercise protocol influenced reproducibility of pacing and performance over multiple, maximal TTs, with best results obtained after a full experience of the exercise compared to HF and EF. The difference of TT1 to later TTs indicates that one familiarization is not adequate in reducing the variability of performance for novice participants. After the FF and an additional TT, performance changes between TTs were small, however, a reproducible pacing profile was not developed until after the FF and two additional TTs. These findings indicate that a minimum of three full familiarizations are necessary for novice participants to limit systematic error before experimental testing.
有经验的运动员的运动表现具有可重复性；然而，训练较少的参与者在表现和节奏方面表现出更大的变异性。为了降低变异性，在实验测试前进行熟悉训练是常见的做法。然而，对于让新手参与者熟悉自行车计时赛（TT）并没有明确的指导方针，而且新手群体的研究结果可能仍然受到学习效应的影响。因此，本研究的目的是确定在采用不同的熟悉训练方案（持续时间或类型）后TT之间的变异性，并确定在多次试验中限制变异性所需的熟悉训练次数。30名没有TT经验的休闲活跃参与者在完成以下三种熟悉训练之一后，分别在五个不同场合进行了20公里的自行车TT：完全熟悉训练（FF，20公里TT，n = 10）、部分熟悉训练（HF，10公里TT，n = 10）或简易熟悉训练（EF，5分钟骑行，n = 10）。与HF（标准差 = 0.08，η² = 0.26）和EF（标准差 = 0.07，η² = 0.21）相比，完成FF后五个TT的TT持续时间变异性最低（标准差 = 0.69，η² = 0.05）。在FF组中，TT2后TT持续时间变化的效应量较小（Cohen's d < 0.49）。HF组（Cohen's d = 1.02，TT3 - TT4）和EF组（Cohen's d = 1.12，TT4 - TT5）后期的TT之间存在较大差异。试验之间平均功率输出曲线的变异性在FF组中最低，TT3 - TT5之间再现了相似的节奏曲线。运动方案的熟悉训练影响了在多次最大强度TT中节奏和表现的可重复性，与HF和EF相比，在完全体验运动后获得了最佳结果。TT1与后期TT的差异表明，一次熟悉训练不足以降低新手参与者表现的变异性。在FF和额外一次TT之后，TT之间的表现变化很小，然而，直到FF和额外两次TT之后才形成可重复的节奏曲线。这些发现表明，新手参与者在实验测试前至少需要三次完全熟悉训练以限制系统误差。
