ArticlePeerJ2015
Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drag area (Ad ) is a primary factor determining aerodynamic resistance during level cycling and is therefore a key determinant of level time trial performance. However, Ad has traditionally been difficult to measure. Our purpose was to determine the value of adding field-measured Ad as a correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In the field, 19 male cyclists performed a level (22.1 km) time trial. Separately, field-determined Ad and rolling resistance were calculated for subjects along with projected frontal area assessed directly (AP ) and indirectly (Est AP ). Also, a graded exercise test was performed to determine [Formula: see text] peak, lactate threshold (LT), and economy. [Formula: see text] peak ([Formula: see text]) and power at LT were significantly correlated to power measured during the time trial (r = 0.83 and 0.69, respectively) but were not significantly correlated to performance time (r = - 0.42 and -0.45). The correlation with performance time improved significantly (p < 0.05) when these variables were normalized to Ad . Of note, Ad alone was better correlated to performance time (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) than any combination of non-normalized physiological measure. The best correlate with performance time was field-measured power output during the time trial normalized to Ad (r = - 0.92). AP only accounted for 54% of the variability in Ad . Accordingly, the correlation to performance time was significantly lower using power normalized to AP (r = - 0.75) or Est AP (r = - 0.71). In conclusion, unless normalized to Ad , level time trial performance in the field was not highly correlated to common laboratory measures. Furthermore, our field-measured Ad is easy to determine and was the single best predictor of level time trial performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.