For aerodynamic reasons, a team pursuit cyclist riding at 60km.h-1 will produce ~600W in the lead position but ~400W when drafting (Broker et al., 1999). The purpose of this study was to simulate two team pursuit race strategies varying the rate of positional changes. Strategies were simulated such that total time as the lead rider was consistent (1min), but with varied compositions (4x15s versus 3x20s). Methods: Male competitive cyclists (n=31; 20.0±1.6yr, 70.2±7.0kg, 355±35W MAP; mean±SD) completed 37d of structured training. Training included daily rides of 2-8 h and cycle ergometer (Wattbike) sessions 3 d.wk-1. Included within an extensive ergometer session were two pursuit-specific interval sets (4x15s, 45s rec at ~250W; 3x20s, 60s rec at ~250W) simulating 1 or 1.5 lap changes in lead position. Both team pursuit interval sets resulted in 1min of high intensity work and 3min of incomplete recovery. Reliability of high intensity power produced during interval sets over one wk was calculated as typical error (TE). A priori planned contrasts (paired t-test) was used to compare each cyclist`s best efforts of the two approaches, provided that corresponding incomplete recovery powers were comparable (±5W). Influence of within group cyclist ability was also explored by establishing two sub samples (Low, High) based on the magnitude of power increase from incomplete recovery to effort. Results: TE for 1min of high intensity power for both interval sets was ~7% (37W). Best interval power for 1min of total work was similar for 1 and 1.5 lap strategies (577±116W vs 588±108W), a difference (mean±90% CI) of 1.4±1.6% (p=.14). Differences were similar for both sub samples(Low 1.9±2.2%, p=.14; high 0.9±2.7%, p=.56). Based on our testing conditions and a minimum worthwhile difference of 2% these differences could be considered "trivial" and "unclear". Discussion: Cycling power during a simulated pursuit does not appear to be compromised by performing 3x20s efforts compared to 4x15s efforts with incomplete recovery. This finding was observed regardless of the magnitude of power production by the cyclists involved. Reducing interval number from 4 to 3 while increasing interval duration from 15-20s can be accomplished without a large decrement in work capacity within the conditions employed in this study. Further research with more reliable performance measures is required to evaluate the ~1.4% greater power produced during the 3x20s intervals.
© Copyright 2012 17th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (ECSS), Bruges, 4. -7. July 2012. Published by Vrije Universiteit Brussel. All rights reserved.