↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Environmental and Feedback Interventions on Pacing Profiles in Cycling: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of Environmental and Feedback Interventions on Pacing Profiles in Cycling: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00591
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Davies, Bradley Clark, Marijke Welvaert, Sabrina Skorski, Laura A. Garvican-Lewis, Philo Saunders, Kevin G. Thompson

Abstract

In search of their optimal performance athletes will alter their pacing strategy according to intrinsic and extrinsic physiological, psychological and environmental factors. However, the effect of some of these variables on pacing and exercise performance remains somewhat unclear. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an overview as to how manipulation of different extrinsic factors affects pacing strategy and exercise performance. Only self-paced exercise studies that provided control and intervention group(s), reported trial variance for power output, disclosed the type of feedback received or withheld, and where time-trial power output data could be segmented into start, middle and end sections; were included in the meta-analysis. Studies with similar themes were grouped together to determine the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between control and intervention trials for: hypoxia, hyperoxia, heat-stress, pre-cooling, and various forms of feedback. A total of 26 studies with cycling as the exercise modality were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, four studies manipulated oxygen availability, eleven manipulated heat-stress, four implemented pre-cooling interventions and seven studies manipulated various forms of feedback. Mean power output (MPO) was significantly reduced in the middle and end sections (p < 0.05), but not the start section of hypoxia and heat-stress trials compared to the control trials. In contrast, there was no significant change in trial or section MPO for hyperoxic or pre-cooling conditions compared to the control condition (p > 0.05). Negative feedback improved overall trial MPO and MPO in the middle section of trials (p < 0.05), while informed feedback improved overall trial MPO (p < 0.05). However, positive, neutral and no feedback had no significant effect on overall trial or section MPO (p > 0.05). The available data suggests exercise regulation in hypoxia and heat-stress is delayed in the start section of trials, before significant reductions in MPO occur in the middle and end of the trial. Additionally, negative feedback involving performance deception may afford an upward shift in MPO in the middle section of the trial improving overall performance. Finally, performance improvements can be retained when participants are informed of the deception.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 23%
Student > Master 16 20%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 31 39%
Psychology 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,263,645
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#694
of 15,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,789
of 426,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#12
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.