Abstract

This study aimed to compare the time course of measures of performance, fatigue, and perceived exertion during repeated-sprint ability (RSA) testing performed on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT) and cycling ergometer (CE). Fourteen physically active participants performed two 10 ×6 s−1 RSA tests with a 1:4 work-to-rest ratio (24 s recovery) on NMT and CE. Measures of performance [peak and mean power output (PPO and MPO), cadence, and the time to reach PPO (TTP)] and of fatigue (fatigue index and decrement score) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected during each session. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Participants completed the RSA test at a MPO of 1,041 ± 141 W on CE and 431 ± 48 W on NMT, achieving PPO of 2,310 ± 339 W on CE and 1,763 ± 289 W on NMT. Participants' weight was significantly correlated with PPO and MPO on CE (p < 0.001) and with MPO on NMT (p < 0.001). PPO on CE and NMT was significantly correlated only for absolute measures of power (p < 0.01). Cadence was higher and decreased throughout the RSA on NMT compared to CE, where it decreased only at the seventh bout. TTP was significantly shorter and more affected by fatigue on NMT than on CE. Fatigue indices were significantly greater on NMT compared to CE, with significant correlations between the decrement score and absolute and relative PPO on CE and NMT, between the fatigue index and absolute and relative PPO only on NMT, and no significant correlations with MPO. During RSA, RPE increased more on NMT compared to CE from bouts 3 to 7. During recovery, RPE was consistently higher on NMT at 1, 3, and 5 min post exercise compared to CE. These findings indicate that RSA performed on NMT induces greater fatigue and physiological load than CE, which originated in the lower resistive torque typically used on NMT compared to CE, resulting in a front loaded power output profile from the greater acceleration and cadence. From these results, we discuss that despite providing highly correlated measures of power output, NMT and CE should not be used interchangeably to assess RSA as they elicit markedly different responses. We also discuss these results from the fundamental differences in active muscle mass and power application patterns between running and cycling, which could form the basis of future studies.

Highlights

  • Conditioning athletes for specific physiological, metabolic, mechanical, and psychological demands met in competition is a fundamental principle of athletic training

  • Post hoc tests revealed that cadence significantly decreased only at the seventh bout and stabilized until the end of the repeated-sprint ability (RSA) test, whereas it decreased throughout the RSA test on nonmotorized treadmills (NMT)

  • Time to reach power output on CE (PPO) was significantly shorter on NMT compared to Cycling ergometers (CE) (p < 0.001; η2p = 0.996), with significant effects of effect of exercise (p < 0.001; η2p = 0.220) and interaction (p < 0.001; η2p = 0.379) (Figure 4)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Conditioning athletes for specific physiological, metabolic, mechanical, and psychological demands met in competition is a fundamental principle of athletic training. A popular form of training for the intermittent nature of field-based sports relies on enhancing repeated-sprint ability (RSA), using exercises characterized by short intervals (up to 10 s) performed at or near maximal abilities and repeated with incomplete rest (up to 60 s; (Girard et al, 2011)). Field running repeated sprinting is preferable, as it has been shown to be more reliable (Hopkins et al, 2001) and more specific (Bishop et al, 2001) for RSA testing of athletes in field-based sports compared to similar exercises using ergometry because of the task dependency of fatigue (Girard et al, 2011) and physiological systems (Bishop et al, 2011). NMTs are used along with CE for RSA testing (Sutton et al, 2000; McLain et al, 2015; Tofari et al, 2015) and used to simulate specific demands of field-based sports (Carling et al, 2012; Nédélec et al, 2013; Aldous et al, 2014)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.