IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v10y2010i1p25-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulated Time Trial Using Three Different Pedal Rate Protocols

Author

Listed:
  • E. Douglas Loveday
  • J. Richard Coast

Abstract

We sought to determine whether pedaling strategy during a 30 minute simulated time trial affected caloric requirements. The simulation consisted of a 30 minute bout divided into three successive 10 minute workloads (250W, 200W and 300W) ridden with three different cadence protocols. Protocol 1 matched the cadence to the power output of each 10 minute period, protocol 2 matched cadence to the average power output over bout and protocol 3 used a constant 95 rpm (common cadence in competition). Heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), and perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. The average total Kcal requirement for each protocol (1-3) was 470.1, 469.8 and 494.3, respectively. The average HR for each protocol was 151.5, 149.3 and 153.0 and the average RPE for each protocol was 12.8, 12.3 and 12.4. Protocol 3 required the greatest amount of energy (P<0.001) and elicited a higher HR (P<0.05) when compared to protocols 1 and 2. At the same time, RPE was not different across bouts (P>0.05). The results show energy expenditure was significantly elevated during the constant 95 rpm bout and that perceived exertion was not an accurate indicator of energy expenditure.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Douglas Loveday & J. Richard Coast, 2010. "Simulated Time Trial Using Three Different Pedal Rate Protocols," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 25-32, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:10:y:2010:i:1:p:25-32
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2010.11868498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2010.11868498
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2010.11868498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:10:y:2010:i:1:p:25-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.