ArticleFrontiers in physiology2016
Cycling in the Absence of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Pacing and Performance.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "Do probiotics mitigate GI-induced inflammation and perceived fatigue in athletes? A systematic review".Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Near infrared spectroscopy-derived muscle oxidative capacity correlates to oxidative metabolic predictors of performance in highly trained female middle-distance runners.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the Assisted Six-Minute Cycling Test as a Measure of Endurance in Non-Ambulatory Patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Mental Fatigue Alters Cortical Activation and Psychological Responses, Impairing Performance in a Distance-Based Cycling Trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
- External Feedback Does Not Affect Running Pace in Recreational Runners.International journal of exercise science · 2018Article
- The Science of Racing against Opponents: Affordance Competition and the Regulation of Exercise Intensity in Head-to-Head Competition.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Passion and Pacing in Endurance Performance.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Familiarization Protocol Influences Reproducibility of 20-km Cycling Time-Trial Performance in Novice Participants.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Fatigue Induced by Physical and Mental Exertion Increases Perception of Effort and Impairs Subsequent Endurance Performance.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Review
- Effect of Environmental and Feedback Interventions on Pacing Profiles in Cycling: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Review
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
introductionTo achieve personal goals in exercise task completion, exercisers have to regulate, distribute, and manage their effort. In endurance sports, it has become very commonplace for athletes to consult task-related feedback on external devices to do so. The aim of the present study was to explore the importance of the presence of this information by examining the influence of the absence of commonly available task-related feedback on effort distribution and performance in experienced endurance athletes.
methodsA 20-km cycling time trial was performed. Twenty Participants from a homogenous cyclist population were appointed to a group that did not receive any feedback (NoF), or a group that could consult task-related feedback (i.e., speed, heart rate, power output, cadence, elapsed time, and elapsed distance) continuously during their trial (FF).
resultsThe distribution of power output (PO) differed between groups. Most evident is the spurt at the end of the trial of FF, which was not incorporated by NoF. Nevertheless, no between-group differences were found in performance time (FF: 28.86 ± 3.68 vs. NoF: 30.95 ± 2.77 min) and mean PO controlled by body mass (FF: 3.61 ± 0.60 vs. NoF: 3.43 ± 0.38 W/kg). Also, no differences in rating of perceived exertion scores were found.
conclusionThe current study provides a first indication that prior knowledge of task demands together with reliance on bodily and environmental information can be sufficient for experienced athletes to come to comparable time trial performances. This questions the necessity of the presence of in-race instantaneous task-related feedback via external devices for maximizing performance. Moreover, it seems that different pacing strategies emerge depending on sources of information available to experienced athletes.
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.