Presence of Spotters Improves Bench Press Performance: A Deception Study.

Sheridan, A, Marchant, DC, Williams, EL, Jones, HS, Hewitt, PA, and Sparks, SA. Presence of spotters improves bench press performance: a deception study. J Strength Cond Res 33(7): 1755-1761, 2019-Resistance exercise is a widely used method of physical training in both recreational exercise and athletic populations. The use of training partners and spotters during resistance exercise is widespread, but little is known about the effect of the presence of these individuals on exercise performance. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effect of spotter presence on bench press performance. Twelve recreationally trained participants (age, 21.3 ± 0.8 years, height, 1.82 ± 0.1 m, and mass, 84.8 ± 11.1 kg) performed 2 trials of 3 sets to failure at 60% of 1 repetition maximum on separate occasions. The 2 trials consisted of spotters being explicitly present or hidden from view (deception). During the trials, total repetitions (reps), total weight lifted, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and self-efficacy were measured. Total reps and weight lifted were significantly greater with spotters (difference = 4.5 reps, t = 5.68, p < 0.001 and difference = 209.6 kg, t = 5.65, p < 0.001, respectively). Although RPE and local RPE were significantly elevated in the deception trials (difference = 0.78, f = 6.16, p = 0.030 and difference = 0.81, f = 5.89, p = 0.034, respectively), self-efficacy was significantly reduced (difference = 1.58, f = 26.90, p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that resistance exercise is improved by the presence of spotters, which is facilitated by reduced RPE and increased self-efficacy. This has important implications for athletes and clients, who should perform resistance exercise in the proximity of others, to maximize total work performed.

Deceptive Manipulation of Competitive Starting Strategies Influences Subsequent Pacing, Physiological Status, and Perceptual Responses during Cycling Time Trials.

Little is currently known regarding competitor influence on pacing at the start of an event and in particular the subsequent effect on the remaining distance. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of starting pace on the physiological and psychological responses during cycling time trials (TT) utilizing an innovative approach allowing pace to be accurately and dynamically replicated, as well as deceptively manipulated. Ten competitive male cyclists completed five 16.1 km TT, two baseline trials performed alone (BLs), and three with a simulated, dynamic avatar of which they were to match the pace of for the initial 4 km. The avatar represented either the cyclist's fastest BL performance (NORM), 105% (FAST), or 95% (SLOW), of fastest BL performance (FBL). Physiological and psychological responses were measured every quartile of the TT. Despite manipulating a starting speed of ± 5% of fastest previous performance, there was no effect on overall 16.1 km TT performance. Manipulated starting strategies did however evoke different physiological and perceptual responses. Whole trial differences found that SLOW produced lower HR, VO2, BLa and RPE than FBL (p ≤ 0.03) and higher SE than FAST (p ≤ 0.03). Additionally, FAST had greater internal attention than NORM (p < 0.04). Over time all psychological and physiological variables had a significant condition × quartile interaction in the initial or second quartile mediated by the prescribed starting strategies. Furthermore, RPE, affect, and internal attention remained elevated throughout FAST despite an attenuation in pace during self-selection of pace. There were no differences in performance time when manipulating a 16.1 km cycling TT starting strategy. A slow start, encouraged greater positive perceptions, and less negative physiological consequences than a faster start, and produces no impairment to performance time. It would therefore be considered an advantage in a non-drafting event, not to follow pace of fellow, superior competitors at the start of an event but perform a more negative pacing strategy, with the potential for a greater speed increase against opponents in the latter stages.

Improvements in Cycling Time Trial Performance Are Not Sustained Following the Acute Provision of Challenging and Deceptive Feedback.

The provision of performance-related feedback during exercise is acknowledged as an influential external cue used to inform pacing decisions. The provision of this feedback in a challenging or deceptive context allows research to explore how feedback can be used to improve performance and influence perceptual responses. However, the effects of deception on both acute and residual responses have yet to be explored, despite potential application for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of challenging and deceptive feedback on perceptual responses and performance in self-paced cycling time trials (TT) and explored whether changes in performance are sustained in a subsequent TT following the disclosure of the deception. Seventeen trained male cyclists were assigned to either an accurate or deceptive feedback group and performed four 16.1 km cycling TTs; (1 and 2) ride-alone baseline TTs where a fastest baseline (FBL) performance was identified, (3) a TT against a virtual avatar representing 102% of their FBL performance (PACER), and (4) a subsequent ride-alone TT (SUB). The deception group, however, were initially informed that the avatar accurately represented their FBL, but prior to SUB were correctly informed of the nature of the avatar. Affect, self-efficacy and RPE were measured every quartile. Both groups performed PACER faster than FBL and SUB (p < 0.05) and experienced lower affect (p = 0.016), lower self-efficacy (p = 0.011), and higher RPE (p < 0.001) in PACER than FBL. No significant differences were found between FBL and SUB for any variable. The presence of the pacer rather than the manipulation of performance beliefs acutely facilitates TT performance and perceptual responses. Revealing that athletes' performance beliefs were falsely negative due to deceptive feedback provision has no effect on subsequent perceptions or performance. A single experiential exposure may not be sufficient to produce meaningful changes in the performance beliefs of trained individuals beyond the acute setting.

Deception has no acute or residual effect on cycling time trial performance but negatively effects perceptual responses.

OBJECTIVES: Feedback deception is used to explore the importance of expectations on pacing strategy and performance in self-paced exercise. The deception of feedback from a previous performance explores the importance of experience knowledge on exercise behaviour. This study aimed to explore the acute and residual effects of the deception of previous performance speed on perceptual responses and performance in cycling time trials. DESIGN: A parallel-group design. METHODS: Twenty cyclists were assigned to a control or deception group and performed 16.1km time trials. Following a ride-alone baseline time trial (FBL), participants performed against a virtual avatar representing their FBL performance (PACER), then completed a subsequent ride-alone time trial (SUB). The avatar in the deception group, however, was unknowingly set 2% faster than their FBL. RESULTS: Both groups performed faster in PACER than FBL and SUB (p<0.05), but SUB was not significantly different to FBL. Affect was more negative and Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were higher in PACER than FBL in the deception group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a visual pacer acutely facilitated time trial performance, but deceptive feedback had no additional effect on performance. The deception group, however, experienced more negative affect and higher RPE in PACER, whereas these responses were absent in the control group. The performance improvement was not sustained in SUB, suggesting no residual performance effects occurred.

Altered Psychological Responses to Different Magnitudes of Deception during Cycling.

PURPOSE: Deceptive manipulations of performance intensity have previously been investigated in cycling time trials (TT) but used different magnitudes, methods, and task durations. This study examines previously used magnitudes of deception during 16.1-km TT and explores yet unexamined psychological responses. METHODS: Twelve trained cyclists completed five TT, performing two baseline trials alone, one against a simulated dynamic avatar representing 102% of fastest baseline trial (TT(102%)), one against a 105% avatar (TT(105%)), and one against both avatars (TT(102%,105%)). RESULTS: Deceptive use of competitors to disguise intensity manipulation enabled accomplishment of performance improvements greater than their perceived maximal (1.3%-1.7%). Despite a similar improvement in performance, during TT(102%,105%), there was significantly lower affect and self-efficacy to continue pace than those during TT(105%) (P < 0.05), significantly lower self-efficacy to compete than that during TT(102%) (P = 0.004), and greater RPE than that during TTFBL (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Because the interpretation of performance information and perceptions depends on the manner in which it is presented, i.e., "framing effect," it could be suggested that the summative effect of two opponents could have evoked negative perceptions despite eliciting a similar performance. Magnitudes of deception produce similar performance enhancement yet elicit diverse psychological responses mediated by the external competitive environment the participants were performing in.

Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1km cycling time trial performance.

OBJECTIVES: Whilst the presence of a competitor has been found to improve performance, the mechanisms influencing the change in selected work rates during direct competition have been suggested but not specifically assessed. The aim was to investigate the physiological and psychological influences of a visual avatar competitor during a 16.1-km cycling time trial performance, using trained, competitive cyclists. DESIGN: Randomised cross-over design. METHODS: Fifteen male cyclists completed four 16.1km cycling time trials on a cycle ergometer, performing two with a visual display of themselves as a simulated avatar (FAM and SELF), one with no visual display (DO), and one with themselves and an opponent as simulated avatars (COMP). Participants were informed the competitive avatar was a similar ability cyclist but it was actually a representation of their fastest previous performance. RESULTS: Increased performance times were evident during COMP (27.8±2.0min) compared to SELF (28.7±1.9min) and DO (28.4±2.3min). Greater power output, speed and heart rate were apparent during COMP trial than SELF (p<0.05) and DO (p≤0.06). There were no differences between SELF and DO. Ratings of perceived exertion were unchanged across all conditions. Internal attentional focus was significantly reduced during COMP trial (p<0.05), suggesting reduced focused on internal sensations during an increase in performance. CONCLUSIONS: Competitive cyclists performed significantly faster during a 16.1-km competitive trial than when performing maximally, without a competitor. The improvement in performance was elicited due to a greater external distraction, deterring perceived exertion.

Distance-dependent association of affect with pacing strategy in cycling time trials.

UNLABELLED: The psychological construct of affect is proposed to significantly contribute to pacing decisions during exercise. Borg's RPE scale, another important regulator of work rate, is criticized as an inadequate measure of the multiple perceptual responses experienced. This study aimed to examine power output distribution and associated changes in affect, self-efficacy, perceptual cues, HR, and respiratory gases during both 16.1- and 40-km self-paced cycling time trials (TT). Secondly, the differentiation between physical perceptions of exertion and sense of effort in self-paced exercise was investigated. METHOD: Fifteen trained male cyclists completed 16.1- and 40-km TT using a CompuTrainer cycle ergometer. Time, power output distribution, affect, self-efficacy, physical RPE (P-RPE), task effort and awareness (TEA), HR, and respiratory gases were measured throughout each TT. Linear mixed models explored associations of these variables with power output distribution and the relationship between P-RPE and TEA. RESULTS: Similar pacing strategies were adopted in the 16.1- and 40-km TT (P = 0.31), and the main effects were found for affect (P = 0.001) and RER (P < 0.001). Interactions between affect (P = 0.037) and RER (P = 0.004), with condition, indicated closer associations with power output distribution in 16.1 km than that in 40 km TT. P-RPE was not significantly different from TEA (P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: A significant association between affect and power output distribution suggests that affective responses are task dependent even in self-paced exercise, and a greater association is demonstrated in higher intensity, 16.1 km TT. Furthermore, physical perceptions of exertion are not clearly differentiated from the sense of effort in self-paced exercise.

Deception studies manipulating centrally acting performance modifiers: a review.

Athletes anticipatorily set and continuously adjust pacing strategies before and during events to produce optimal performance. Self-regulation ensures maximal effort is exerted in correspondence with the end point of exercise, while preventing physiological changes that are detrimental and disruptive to homeostatic control. The integration of feedforward and feedback information, together with the proposed brain's performance modifiers is said to be fundamental to this anticipatory and continuous regulation of exercise. The manipulation of central, regulatory internal and external stimuli has been a key focus within deception research, attempting to influence the self-regulation of exercise and induce improvements in performance. Methods of manipulating performance modifiers such as unknown task end point, deceived duration or intensity feedback, self-belief, or previous experience create a challenge within research, as although they contextualize theoretical propositions, there are few ecological and practical approaches which integrate theory with practice. In addition, the different methods and measures demonstrated in manipulation studies have produced inconsistent results. This review examines and critically evaluates the current methods of how specific centrally controlled performance modifiers have been manipulated, within previous deception studies. From the 31 studies reviewed, 10 reported positive effects on performance, encouraging future investigations to explore the mechanisms responsible for influencing pacing and consequently how deceptive approaches can further facilitate performance. The review acts to discuss the use of expectation manipulation not only to examine which methods of deception are successful in facilitating performance but also to understand further the key components used in the regulation of exercise and performance.

Physiological and psychological effects of deception on pacing strategy and performance: a review.

The aim of an optimal pacing strategy during exercise is to enhance performance whilst ensuring physiological limits are not surpassed, which has been shown to result in a metabolic reserve at the end of the exercise. There has been debate surrounding the theoretical models that have been proposed to explain how pace is regulated, with more recent research investigating a central control of exercise regulation. Deception has recently emerged as a common, practical approach to manipulate key variables during exercise. There are a number of ways in which deception interventions have been designed, each intending to gain particular insights into pacing behaviour and performance. Deception methodologies can be conceptualised according to a number of dimensions such as deception timing (prior to or during exercise), presentation frequency (blind, discontinuous or continuous) and type of deception (performance, biofeedback or environmental feedback). However, research evidence on the effects of deception has been perplexing and the use of complex designs and varied methodologies makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about how pacing strategy and performance are affected by deception. This review examines existing research in the area of deception and pacing strategies, and provides a critical appraisal of the different methodological approaches used to date. It is hoped that this analysis will inform the direction and methodology of future investigations in this area by addressing the mechanisms through which deception impacts upon performance and by elucidating the potential application of deception techniques in training and competitive settings.