DECEPTION AND EXERCISE PERFORMANCE DURING REPEATED 4-KM CYCLING TIME TRIALS

Abstract

Cyclists have been shown to improve their performance in a simulated 4-km laboratory based time trial when given feedback derived from a prior performance which is surreptitiously augmented. Presently, it is unknown whether or not these performance gains are persistent after the subjects are informed of the deception. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether or not performance gains achieved through deception persist after the deception was revealed. A secondary aim of this study was to assess whether the subjects’ pacing strategy changed after the deception was revealed. METHODS: The subjects were trained competitive cyclists. All subjects who were admitted into the study completed a total of four (4) simulated 4-kilometer cycling time trials comprising of a familiarization trial, baseline trial (BAS), deception trial (DEC), and knowledge of deception trial (KDE) performed on separate occasions. In the DEC and KDE trials, subjects competed against an on-screen avatar set to 102% of their baseline average power output. Time to completion, average power output, mean power output for each 0.5-km segment of the distance covered, and change in blood lactate concentration from pre- to post- time trial for each time trial were recorded. RESULTS: Subjects who completed the DEC trial faster compared to BAS trial also completed the KDE trial faster compared to the BAS trial (F = 13.61, p = 0.003), but time to completion in DEC and KDE trials were not different in these subjects (95% CI = -3.3 to 4.3s). Subjects who did not complete the DEC trial faster than the BAS trial also demonstrated differences in time to completion (F = 17.31, p = 0.003), with the KDE trial being completed faster than the DEC trial (95% CI = 5.3 to 17.5 s), but not the BAS trial (95% CI = -6.3 to 15.0 s). Analysis of the pacing strategy adopted by subjects revealed no differences between trials for subjects who improved in the DEC trial (F = 1.53, p = 0.238), but significant differences were observed in subjects who did not improve in the DEC trial (F = 8.91, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Trained cyclists whose performance improves upon receiving surreptitiously augmented feedback during simulated 4-km time trials are able to retain their performance gains once the deception is revealed. They do not appear to adopt a different pacing strategy in either of the improved trials (DEC and KDE).