Variable versus constant power strategies during cycling time-trials

prediction of time savings using an up-to-date mathematical model

G Atkinson, O Peacock, L Passfield

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Swain (1997) employed the mathematical model of Di Prampero et al. (1979) to predict that, for cycling time-trials, the optimal pacing strategy is to vary power in parallel with the changes experienced in gradient and wind speed. We used a more up-to-date mathematical model with validated coefficients (Martin et al., 1998) to quantify the time savings that would result from such optimization of pacing strategy. A hypothetical cyclist (mass = 70 kg) and bicycle (mass = 10 kg) were studied under varying hypothetical wind velocities (-10 to 10 m x s(-1)), gradients (-10 to 10%), and pacing strategies. Mean rider power outputs of 164, 289, and 394 W were chosen to mirror baseline performances studied previously. The three race scenarios were: (i) a 10-km time-trial with alternating 1-km sections of 10% and -10% gradient; (ii) a 40-km time-trial with alternating 5-km sections of 4.4 and -4.4 m x s(-1) wind (Swain, 1997); and (iii) the 40-km time-trial delimited by Jeukendrup and Martin (2001). Varying a mean power of 289 W by +/- 10% during Swain's (1997) hilly and windy courses resulted in time savings of 126 and 51 s, respectively. Time savings for most race scenarios were greater than those suggested by Swain (1997). For a mean power of 289 W over the "standard" 40-km time-trial, a time saving of 26 s was observed with a power variability of 10%. The largest time savings were found for the hypothetical riders with the lowest mean power output who could vary power to the greatest extent. Our findings confirm that time savings are possible in cycling time-trials if the rider varies power in parallel with hill gradient and wind direction. With a more recent mathematical model, we found slightly greater time savings than those reported by Swain (1997). These time savings compared favourably with the predicted benefits of interventions such as altitude training or ingestion of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks. Nevertheless, the extent to which such power output variations can be tolerated by a cyclist during a time-trial is still unclear.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1001-1009
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Volume25
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Fingerprint

Theoretical Models
Electrolytes
Eating
Carbohydrates

Keywords

  • Acceleration
  • Bicycling
  • Ergometry
  • Exercise Test
  • Great Britain
  • Models, Statistical
  • Physical Endurance
  • Time Factors
  • Wind

Cite this

Variable versus constant power strategies during cycling time-trials : prediction of time savings using an up-to-date mathematical model. / Atkinson, G; Peacock, O; Passfield, L.

In: Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 9, 2007, p. 1001-1009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fab0fcc9f86f4359a78d3663a2cfdad3,
title = "Variable versus constant power strategies during cycling time-trials: prediction of time savings using an up-to-date mathematical model",
abstract = "Swain (1997) employed the mathematical model of Di Prampero et al. (1979) to predict that, for cycling time-trials, the optimal pacing strategy is to vary power in parallel with the changes experienced in gradient and wind speed. We used a more up-to-date mathematical model with validated coefficients (Martin et al., 1998) to quantify the time savings that would result from such optimization of pacing strategy. A hypothetical cyclist (mass = 70 kg) and bicycle (mass = 10 kg) were studied under varying hypothetical wind velocities (-10 to 10 m x s(-1)), gradients (-10 to 10{\%}), and pacing strategies. Mean rider power outputs of 164, 289, and 394 W were chosen to mirror baseline performances studied previously. The three race scenarios were: (i) a 10-km time-trial with alternating 1-km sections of 10{\%} and -10{\%} gradient; (ii) a 40-km time-trial with alternating 5-km sections of 4.4 and -4.4 m x s(-1) wind (Swain, 1997); and (iii) the 40-km time-trial delimited by Jeukendrup and Martin (2001). Varying a mean power of 289 W by +/- 10{\%} during Swain's (1997) hilly and windy courses resulted in time savings of 126 and 51 s, respectively. Time savings for most race scenarios were greater than those suggested by Swain (1997). For a mean power of 289 W over the {"}standard{"} 40-km time-trial, a time saving of 26 s was observed with a power variability of 10{\%}. The largest time savings were found for the hypothetical riders with the lowest mean power output who could vary power to the greatest extent. Our findings confirm that time savings are possible in cycling time-trials if the rider varies power in parallel with hill gradient and wind direction. With a more recent mathematical model, we found slightly greater time savings than those reported by Swain (1997). These time savings compared favourably with the predicted benefits of interventions such as altitude training or ingestion of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks. Nevertheless, the extent to which such power output variations can be tolerated by a cyclist during a time-trial is still unclear.",
keywords = "Acceleration, Bicycling, Ergometry, Exercise Test, Great Britain, Models, Statistical, Physical Endurance, Time Factors, Wind",
author = "G Atkinson and O Peacock and L Passfield",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1080/02640410600944709",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1001--1009",
journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
issn = "0264-0414",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variable versus constant power strategies during cycling time-trials

T2 - prediction of time savings using an up-to-date mathematical model

AU - Atkinson, G

AU - Peacock, O

AU - Passfield, L

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Swain (1997) employed the mathematical model of Di Prampero et al. (1979) to predict that, for cycling time-trials, the optimal pacing strategy is to vary power in parallel with the changes experienced in gradient and wind speed. We used a more up-to-date mathematical model with validated coefficients (Martin et al., 1998) to quantify the time savings that would result from such optimization of pacing strategy. A hypothetical cyclist (mass = 70 kg) and bicycle (mass = 10 kg) were studied under varying hypothetical wind velocities (-10 to 10 m x s(-1)), gradients (-10 to 10%), and pacing strategies. Mean rider power outputs of 164, 289, and 394 W were chosen to mirror baseline performances studied previously. The three race scenarios were: (i) a 10-km time-trial with alternating 1-km sections of 10% and -10% gradient; (ii) a 40-km time-trial with alternating 5-km sections of 4.4 and -4.4 m x s(-1) wind (Swain, 1997); and (iii) the 40-km time-trial delimited by Jeukendrup and Martin (2001). Varying a mean power of 289 W by +/- 10% during Swain's (1997) hilly and windy courses resulted in time savings of 126 and 51 s, respectively. Time savings for most race scenarios were greater than those suggested by Swain (1997). For a mean power of 289 W over the "standard" 40-km time-trial, a time saving of 26 s was observed with a power variability of 10%. The largest time savings were found for the hypothetical riders with the lowest mean power output who could vary power to the greatest extent. Our findings confirm that time savings are possible in cycling time-trials if the rider varies power in parallel with hill gradient and wind direction. With a more recent mathematical model, we found slightly greater time savings than those reported by Swain (1997). These time savings compared favourably with the predicted benefits of interventions such as altitude training or ingestion of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks. Nevertheless, the extent to which such power output variations can be tolerated by a cyclist during a time-trial is still unclear.

AB - Swain (1997) employed the mathematical model of Di Prampero et al. (1979) to predict that, for cycling time-trials, the optimal pacing strategy is to vary power in parallel with the changes experienced in gradient and wind speed. We used a more up-to-date mathematical model with validated coefficients (Martin et al., 1998) to quantify the time savings that would result from such optimization of pacing strategy. A hypothetical cyclist (mass = 70 kg) and bicycle (mass = 10 kg) were studied under varying hypothetical wind velocities (-10 to 10 m x s(-1)), gradients (-10 to 10%), and pacing strategies. Mean rider power outputs of 164, 289, and 394 W were chosen to mirror baseline performances studied previously. The three race scenarios were: (i) a 10-km time-trial with alternating 1-km sections of 10% and -10% gradient; (ii) a 40-km time-trial with alternating 5-km sections of 4.4 and -4.4 m x s(-1) wind (Swain, 1997); and (iii) the 40-km time-trial delimited by Jeukendrup and Martin (2001). Varying a mean power of 289 W by +/- 10% during Swain's (1997) hilly and windy courses resulted in time savings of 126 and 51 s, respectively. Time savings for most race scenarios were greater than those suggested by Swain (1997). For a mean power of 289 W over the "standard" 40-km time-trial, a time saving of 26 s was observed with a power variability of 10%. The largest time savings were found for the hypothetical riders with the lowest mean power output who could vary power to the greatest extent. Our findings confirm that time savings are possible in cycling time-trials if the rider varies power in parallel with hill gradient and wind direction. With a more recent mathematical model, we found slightly greater time savings than those reported by Swain (1997). These time savings compared favourably with the predicted benefits of interventions such as altitude training or ingestion of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks. Nevertheless, the extent to which such power output variations can be tolerated by a cyclist during a time-trial is still unclear.

KW - Acceleration

KW - Bicycling

KW - Ergometry

KW - Exercise Test

KW - Great Britain

KW - Models, Statistical

KW - Physical Endurance

KW - Time Factors

KW - Wind

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410600944709

U2 - 10.1080/02640410600944709

DO - 10.1080/02640410600944709

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1001

EP - 1009

JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

SN - 0264-0414

IS - 9

ER -