Effect of different pacing strategies on 4-km cycling time trial performance

In cycling, there is a body of evidence that supports that an all-out start strategy is superior to an even-pacing strategy, but it is unknown whether an all-out start strategy is superior to a self-paced strategy. In the present study, we investigated the effects of three different pacing strategies on 4-km cycling time trial performance. After preliminary trials (familiarization trials and a baseline 4-km cycling time trial), in a randomized and counterbalanced order, twelve male cyclists (32.3±7.2 years old, maximum rate of O2 uptake (V̇O2peak) 4.3±0.4 L/min) completed: 1) a self-paced 4-km cycling time trial; 2) an all-out start (∼10 s), followed by maintenance of the average baseline trial power for the first km and self-paced cycling for the remaining trial (all-out+mean); and 3) an all-out start (∼10 s), followed by a power 5% above the average baseline trial power for the first km and self-paced cycling for the remaining trial (all-out+5%mean). Although there was a significant interaction between power and distance (P=0.001) with different power distribution profiles throughout the trial, there was no significant difference (P=0.99) between the three strategies for overall exercise performance (self-paced 379.8±13.9 s, all-out+mean 380.0±16.0 s, and all-out+5%mean 380.2±11.5 s). Oxygen uptake, rating of perceived effort, and heart rate were also similar across the pacing strategies. Different all-out start strategies did not confer additional benefits to performance compared to a self-paced strategy.

Effects of a 4-week high-intensity interval training on pacing during 5-km running trial

This study analyzed the influence of a 4-week high-intensity interval training on the pacing strategy adopted by runners during a 5-km running trial. Sixteen male recreational long-distance runners were randomly assigned to a control group (CON, n=8) or a high-intensity interval training group (HIIT, n=8). The HIIT group performed high-intensity interval-training twice per week, while the CON group maintained their regular training program. Before and after the training period, the runners performed an incremental exercise test to exhaustion to measure the onset of blood lactate accumulation, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), and peak treadmill speed (PTS). A submaximal constant-speed test to measure the running economy (RE) and a 5-km running trial on an outdoor track to establish pacing strategy and performance were also done. During the 5-km running trial, the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and time to cover the 5-km trial (T5) were registered. After the training period, there were significant improvements in the HIIT group of ∼7 and 5% for RE (P=0.012) and PTS (P=0.019), respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups for VO2max (P=0.495) or onset of blood lactate accumulation (P=0.101). No difference was found in the parameters measured during the 5-km trial before the training period between HIIT and CON (P>0.05). These findings suggest that 4 weeks of HIIT can improve some traditional physiological variables related to endurance performance (RE and PTS), but it does not alter the perception of effort, pacing strategy, or overall performance during a 5-km running trial.