Search

Aim. Our purposes were to investigate: (a) differences in mood states between high and low performers at the beginning and end of the Girobio 2012 cycling race, and in respect to both actual and perceived performance; and (b) whether the participants’ mood states predicted actual and perceived performance. Methods. Profile of Mood States (POMS) of 72 elite cyclists were assessed the day prior to the first (T0) and last stage (T1). At the end of the race, we created two rankings, one based on the total time spent to complete the race (actual ranking) and one based on the average of self-evaluations provided at the end of each stage (perceived ranking). We compared high and low performers, considering both rankings, using a general measure of mood; i.e. the Total Mood Disturbance. Results. Total Mood Disturbance differed among high and low performers. In particular, high performers’ mood disturbance did not differ between T0 and T1, whereas low performing cyclists showed higher levels of mood disturbance at the end of the race. Furthermore, we found that mood disturbance at T0 did not predict either actual or perceived performance. Conclusions. The cyclists’ mood states at the beginning of the race are not reliable predictors of performance throughout the race. High performing cyclists maintained a more positive mood profile than their low performing counterparts at the beginning and end of a multi-stage race.

The purposes of this study were to (a) determine and compare the magnitude of pre–post recovery and stress scores among highly trained cyclists participating in the “Girobio”, and (b) identify stress/recovery balance factors that remained constant from pre- to post-race testing. Sixty-seven cyclists with extensive international experience and representing various teams participated in the study. Data were collected during the Girobio-2012, a multi-stage competition for Under 23 and Elite cycling categories, held annually in Italy. Participants responded to the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Sport 1 day before the first stage (test, T1) and on the day of the ninth/final stage (i.e., 5 h prior to the start) (retest, T2). Compared to test scores, at retest we expected to find higher stress and lower recovery values for all subscales with the exception of self-efficacy and self-regulation, which reflect goal-oriented experiences rather than psychophysical states linked to a given race. Overall, results were in this expected direction. No significant effects were found for one general stress subscale (i.e., Conflict/Pressure), two general recovery subscales (i.e., Success and Social Recovery), and two sport-specific recovery subscales (i.e., Personal Accomplishment, and Self-Efficacy), thus suggesting the stability of these stress/recovery factors over time. Collectively, these findings reinforce the importance of assessing multiple indicators of stress/recovery balance to establish mental training guidelines aimed at addressing and preventing both temporary and relatively chronic maladaptation among cyclists.