Search

Purpose: Peak power output (PPO) is a determinant of sprint cycling performance and can be enhanced by resistance exercise that targets maximum strength. Conventional resistance training is not always suitable for elite cyclists because of chronic spinal issues; therefore, alternative methods to improve strength that concurrently reduce injury risk are welcome. In this case study, quasi-isometric cycling (QIC), a novel task-specific resistance-training method designed to improve PPO without the use of transitional resistance training, was investigated. Methods: A highly trained sprint track cyclist (10.401 s for 200 m) completed a 5-week training block followed by a second 5-week block that replaced conventional resistance training with the novel QIC training method. The replacement training method required the cyclist to maximally drive the crank of a modified cycle ergometer for 5 seconds as it passed through a ~100° range (starting at 45° from top dead center) at a constant angular velocity. Each session consisted of 3 sets of 6 repetitions on each leg. The lab PPO was recorded in the saddle and out of the saddle. Results: Conventional training did not alter sprinting ability; however, the intervention improved the out-of-the-saddle PPO by 100 W (from 1751 to 1851 W), while the in-the-saddle PPO increased by 57 W from 1671 to 1728 W. Conclusion: QIC increased PPO in a highly trained, national-level sprint cyclist, which could be translated to improvements in performance on the track. Furthermore, QIC provides a simple, but nonetheless effective, alternative for sprint track cyclists who have compromised function to perform traditional strength training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The hyperbolic distance–time relationship can be used to profile running performance and establish critical speed (CS) and D′ (the curvature constant of the speed–time relationship). Typically, to establish these parameters, multiple (3+) performance trials are required, which can be highly fatiguing and limit the usability of such protocols in a single training session. This study aimed to compare CS and D′ calculated from a 2-trial (2-point model) and a 3-trial (3-point model) method. Methods: A total of 14 male distance runners completed 3 fixed-distance (3600, 2400, and 1200 m) time trials on a 400-m outdoor running track, separated by 30-min recoveries. Participants completed the protocol 9 times across a 12-mo period, with approximately 42 d between tests. CS and D′ were calculated using all 3 distances (3-point model) and also using the 3600- and 1200-m distances only (2-point model). Results: Mean (SD) CS for both 3-point and 2-point models was 4.94 (0.32) m·s−1, whereas the values for D′ were 123.3 (57.70) and 127.4 (57.34) m for the 3-point and 2-point models, respectively. Overall bias for both CS and D′ between 3-point and 2-point model was classed as trivial. Conclusion: A 2-point time-trial model can be used to calculate CS and D′ as proficiently as a 3-point model, making it a less fatiguing, inexpensive, and applicable method for coaches, practitioners, and athletes for monitoring running performance in 1 training session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Elite level cycling events are performed at speeds in excess of 50 km/h. At these speeds, over 90% of the resistance forces come from aerodynamic resistance (CDA). Recently bicycle-mounted pitot tubes, such as the Notio Konect (NK) have become more commercially available making CDA easier to measure. Its reliability and sensitivity would be useful for riders and coaches to be able to understand what constitutes as a change in CDA. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to establish the intra- and inter-effort reliability and sensitivity of the CDA measures of the NK. Seven elite level track riders were used in this study which was broken into two parts: (1) Reliability and (2) Sensitivity. For both parts of the experiment, riders performed identical efforts, riding at ∼50 km/h for six laps of a 250 m indoor velodrome. For reliability, the riders performed six efforts without any changes in position or resistance. For sensitivity, they performed the efforts with a rod with discs of a known diameters attached at each end to vary the CDA by a known amount. For the reliability assessment, low coefficient of variation of intra – (0.47%) and inter-effort (0.9%) reliability were measured. With regards to sensitivity, the smallest changes in resistance (from 5 – 6 cm, i.e. 1.2% or 0.002 m2) was identified by the NK. The data in this experiment suggests that the NK is a highly reliable in measuring CDA can detect changes up to at least 1.2% in an indoor velodrome using elite level track riders. The Notio Konect showed high levels of inter- and intra-effort reliability. The Notio Konect could detect a change as small as 1.2% in aerodynamic drag. The findings suggest that the Notio Konect is suitable for detecting small changes in aerodynamic drag in a velodrome setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Typically, accessing the asymptote (critical power; CP) and curvature constant (W') parameters of the hyperbolic power-duration relationship requires multiple constant-power exhaustive-exercise trials spread over several visits. However, more recently single-visit protocols and personal power meters have been used. This study investigated the practicality of using a 2-trial, single-visit protocol in providing reliable CP and W' estimates. Methods: Eight trained cyclists underwent 3- and 12-min maximal-exercise trials in a single session to derive (2-trial) CP and W' estimates. On a separate occasion a 5-min trial was performed, providing a 3rd trial to calculate (3-trial) CP and W'. Results: There were no differences in CP (283 ± 66 vs 282 ± 65 W) or W' (18.72 ± 6.21 vs 18.27 ± 6.29 kJ) obtained from either the 2-trial or 3-trial method, respectively. After 2 familiarization sessions (completing a 3- and a 12-min trial on both occasions), both CP and W' remained reliable over additional separate measurements. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that after 2 familiarization sessions, reliable CP and W' parameters can be obtained from trained cyclists using only 2 maximal-exercise trials. These results offer practitioners a practical, time-efficient solution for incorporating power-duration testing into applied athlete support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Typically, accessing the asymptote (critical power; CP) and curvature constant (W') parameters of the hyperbolic power-duration relationship requires multiple constant-power exhaustive-exercise trials spread over several visits. However, more recently single-visit protocols and personal power meters have been used. This study investigated the practicality of using a 2-trial, single-visit protocol in providing reliable CP and W' estimates. Methods: Eight trained cyclists underwent 3- and 12-min maximal-exercise trials in a single session to derive (2-trial) CP and W' estimates. On a separate occasion a 5-min trial was performed, providing a 3rd trial to calculate (3-trial) CP and W'. Results: There were no differences in CP (283 ± 66 vs 282 ± 65 W) or W' (18.72 ± 6.21 vs 18.27 ± 6.29 kJ) obtained from either the 2-trial or 3-trial method, respectively. After 2 familiarization sessions (completing a 3- and a 12-min trial on both occasions), both CP and W' remained reliable over additional separate measurements. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that after 2 familiarization sessions, reliable CP and W' parameters can be obtained from trained cyclists using only 2 maximal-exercise trials. These results offer practitioners a practical, time-efficient solution for incorporating power-duration testing into applied athlete support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a 6‐week cycling‐specific, isometric resistance training program on peak power output (PPO) in elite cyclists. Methods: Twenty‐four elite track sprint cyclists were allocated to EXP (n = 13, PPO, 1537 ± 307 W) and CON (n = 11, PPO, 1541 ± 389 W) groups. All participants completed a 6‐week training program; training content was identical except participants in the EXP group replaced their usual compound lower body resistance training exercise with a cycling‐specific, isometric resistance training stimulus. Cycling PPO, knee extensor and cycling‐specific isometric strength, and measures of muscle architecture were assessed pre‐ and post‐training. Results: In EXP, absolute and relative PPO increased (46 ± 62 W and 0.8 ± 0.7 W/kg, P <.05), and the change in relative PPO was different to CON (−0.1 ± 1.0 W/kg, group × time interaction P =.02). The increase in PPO was concurrent with an increase in extrapolated maximal torque in EXP (7.1 ± 6.5 Nm, P =.007), but the effect was not different from the change in CON (2.4 ± 9.7 Nm, group × time P =.14). Cycling‐specific isometric strength also increased more in EXP (group × time P =.002). There were no other between‐group differences in response to training. Conclusion: A 6‐week novel, cycling‐specific isometric resistance training period improved PPO in a group of elite sprint cyclists by 3%‐4%. These data support the use of a cycling‐specific isometric resistance training stimulus in the preparation programs of world‐class cyclists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Body position is known to alter power production and affect cycling performance. The aim of this study was to compare mechanical power output in two riding positions, and to calculate the effects on critical power (CP) and W′ estimates. Seven trained cyclists completed three peak power output efforts and three fixed-duration trial (3-, 5- and 12-min) riding with their hands on the brake lever hoods (BLH), or in a time trial position (TTP). A repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that mean power output during the 5-min trial was significantly different between BLH and TTP positions, resulting in a significantly lower estimate of CP, but not W′, for the TTP trial. In addition, TTP decreased the performance during each trial and increased the percentage difference between BLH and TTP with greater trial duration. There were no differences in pedal cadence or heart rate during the 3-min trial; however, TTP results for the 12-min trial showed a significant fall in pedal cadence and a significant rise in heart rate. The findings suggest that cycling position affects power output and influences consequent CP values. Therefore, cyclists and coaches should consider the cycling position used when calculating CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]