Key result
Correct comparative performance feedback significantly reduced 4-km track cycling completion time compared to non-contingent feedback (341 vs 350 seconds, p<0.05).
Why the study?
Does correct comparative performance feedback improve completion time in highly trained male cyclists during a 4-km track cycling time trial?
RCT (n=5)
randomised
Does correct comparative performance feedback improve completion time in highly trained male cyclists during a 4-km track cycling time trial?
Absolute Event Rate: 341% vs 350%
p-value: p=<0.05
Accurate comparative performance feedback significantly improves completion time and pacing strategy during a 4-km cycling time trial compared to non-contingent feedback.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports accurate feedback in endurance training protocols; extends evidence on psychological pacing interventions in RCTs.
Stewart et al. (2006) conducted an RCT in highly trained male cyclists (n=5). correct (COR) comparative performance feedback vs. non-contingent (FAL) feedback was evaluated on completion time (p=<0.05). Correct comparative performance feedback significantly reduced 4-km track cycling completion time compared to non-contingent feedback (341 vs 350 seconds, p<0.05).