May 30, 2018 - A-40 Free Communication/Poster - Cycling. Wednesday, May 30, 2018 ... Indoor Cycling Energy Expenditure: Does Sequence. Matter? Cristina ...
S20 Vol. 49 No. 5 Supplement
A-40
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE®
Free Communication/Poster - Cycling Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 7:30 AM - 12:30 PM Room: CC-Hall B
181
Board #22 May 30 9:30 AM - 11:00 AM Training Impulses And The Relation With Performance Improvement: Not That Straightforward Kobe M. Vermeire, Gilles Vandewiele, Jan Bourgois, Jan Boone. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2018
(No relevant relationships reported) Purpose: To assess the relation between training load and performance improvement in a homogeneous group with a differentiated training programme. Methods: Training data from 11 recreational cyclists (aged 38.5 ± 5.9 yr) were collected during a 12-week training period. Before and after the training period, subjects underwent a laboratory incremental exercise test with lactate measurements. Baseline metrics were the aerobic lactate threshold (ALT), the anaerobic lactate threshold (ANLT) and the maximum power output (MPO). Internal training load was calculated using individualized TRIMP (iTRIMP), Lucia TRIMP (LuTRIMP), Banister TRIMP (bTRIMP) and Edwards TRIMP (eTRIMP). The distribution of training load was calculated as the time in zone 1 (Z1), zone 2 (Z2) and zone 3 (Z3), being the zone below the ALT, between ALT and ANLT and the zone above ANLT respectively. Results: 353 training sessions were analysed. All metrics improved (p < 0.01) from baseline to posttest (ALT from 161.4 W ± 20.8 to 179.4 W ± 25.6; ANLT from 221.6 W ± 25.8 to 240.4 W ± 25.0 and MPO from 273.5 W ± 23.7 to 290.9 W ± 26.0) All TRIMP calculations correlated very highly with one another (r= 0.88 – 0.99, p < 0.01). No significant correlations (p < 0.05) were found between the mean weekly TRIMP, for every calculated method, and the improvement in fitness variables. When looking at the distribution of training time, total minutes in Z2 correlated largely with the progression in the ANLT (r = -0.63, p = 0.02). The percentage of time trained in Z1 correlated with progress in MPO (r = 0.58, p = 0.03), percentage in Z2 correlated negatively with MPO (r = -0.74, p < 0.01) and percentage in Z3 shows a relation with the progress in ANLT (r = 0.56, p = 0.04). When combining the percentage and total time in each of the training zones in a regression analysis, there is a stronger relation with the improvement in ALT (r = 0.29), in ANLT( r = 0.74) and MPO (r = 0.81). Conclusion: Directly relating training impulses with training progression should be done with caution. Distribution of training time over the intensity zones should always be accounted for. It is improbable that one metric could directly relate to the overall progression of an athlete.
182
Board #23 May 30 9:30 AM - 11:00 AM Indoor Cycling Energy Expenditure: Does Sequence Matter? Cristina Cortis1, Carl Foster, FACSM2, Mich Cook2, Scott T. Doberstein2, Cordial Gillette2, John P. Porcari, FACSM2. 1 University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, Cassino, Italy. 2 University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI. (No relevant relationships reported)
Although during cycling class intensity is modified by changing interval intensity sequencing, it has not been established whether intensity order can alter physiological and perceptual responses within a workout. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of interval intensity sequencing on energy expenditure, physiological markers, and perceptual responses during indoor cycling. METHODS: 10 males (20.0±0.8 yr) and 8 females (21.3±2.7 yr) completed four cycle ergometer sessions. They performed 3 randomly ordered interval bouts (random intervals-RI, ascending intervals-AI, and descending intervals-DI) including three 3-minute work bouts at workloads corresponding to 50%, 75%, and 100% of peak power output (PPO) and three 3-minute recovery periods at 25% PPO. Heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO2) were measured and expressed as percentages of maximal HR (%HRmax) and VO2 (%VO2max). Energy expenditure was considered for both the work bout (EE) and for the 5-minute recovery period (EE Rec). Session RPE (sRPE) and Exercise Enjoyment Scale (EES) were recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences were found for %HRmax (RI: 73.3±6.1%; AI: 72.1±4.9%; DI: 71.8±4.5%), %VO2max (RI: 51.8±4.6%; AI: 51.4±3.9%; DI: 51.3±4.5%), EE (RI: 277.5±39.9; AI: 275.8±39.4; DI: 274.9±42.1 kcal), EES (RI: 4.9±1.0; AI: 5.3±1.1; DI: 4.9±0.9), and sRPE (RI: 4.9±1.0; AI: 5.3±1.1; DI: 4.9±0.9). EE Rec was significantly (p
