Why the study?
Does stochastic exercise compared to steady-state exercise affect subsequent 20-km cycling time trial performance in competitive cyclists?
Does stochastic exercise compared to steady-state exercise affect subsequent 20-km cycling time trial performance in competitive cyclists?
In competitive cyclists, 150 minutes of stochastic exercise impairs subsequent 20-km time trial performance compared to steady-state exercise of the same average intensity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Stochastic exercise impairs subsequent TT performance in cyclists; extends RCT evidence favoring steady-state efforts of equal intensity.
The aims of this investigation were to evaluate the physiological responses to laboratory based stochastic exercise and to assess the effects of stochastic versus steady-state exercise on subsequent cycling time trial (TT) performance. Six competitive cyclists (peak power output (PPO) 432 +/- 39 W (values are mean +/- SD) undertook in a random order two 150-min paced rides that were either constant load (58% of PPO) or stochastic in nature (58 +/- 12.2% of PPO). These rides were immediately followed by a 20-km TT performance on an air-braked ergometer. Mean heart rate (HR) responses throughout the 150-min paced rides and during the subsequent TT were not significantly different between trials. Yet, despite the similarities in HR, the mean time for the TT was significantly faster (26:32 +/- 1:30 vs 28:08 +/- 1:47 min, P < 0.05) and the mean power output was significantly greater (340.3 +/- 44.2 vs 302.5 +/- 42.3 W; 77.8 +/- 10.2 vs 70.0 +/- 9.8% of PPO, P < 0.05) following the steady-state ride. These results demonstrate that following 150 min of steady-state riding, subsequent 20 km TT performance was significantly improved when compared with 150 min of stochastic exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palmer et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: