The effects of block training on pacing during 20-km cycling time trial

No Differences Between 12 Weeks of Block- vs. Traditional-Periodized Training in Performance Adaptations in Trained Cyclists

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 12 weeks load-matched block periodization (BP, n = 14), using weekly concentration of high- (HIT), moderate- (MIT), and low- (LIT) intensity training, with traditional periodization (TP, n = 16) using a weekly, cyclic progressive increase in training load of HIT-, MIT-, and LIT-sessions in trained cyclists (peak oxygen uptake: 58 ± 8 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹). Red blood cell volume increased 10 ± 16% (p = 0.029) more in BP compared to TP, while capillaries around type I fibers increased 20 ± 12% (p = 0.002) more in TP compared to BP from Pre to Post12. No other group differences were found in time-trial (TT) performances or muscular-, or hematological adaptations. However, both groups improved 5 and 40-min TT power by 9 ± 9% (p < 0.001) and 8 ± 9% (p < 0.001), maximal aerobic power (W_max) and power output (PO) at 4 mmol·L⁻¹ blood lactate (W_4mmol), by 6 ± 7 (p = 0.001) and 10 ± 12% (p = 0.001), and gross efficiency (GE) in a semi-fatigued state by 0.5 ± 1.1%-points (p = 0.026). In contrast, GE in fresh state and VO_2peak were unaltered in both groups. The muscle protein content of β-hydroxyacyl (HAD) increased by 55 ± 58% in TP only, while both TP and BP increased the content of cytochrome c oxidase subunit IV (COXIV) by 72 ± 34%. Muscle enzyme activities of citrate synthase (CS) and phosphofructokinase (PFK) were unaltered. TP increased capillary-to-fiber ratio and capillary around fiber (CAF) type I by 36 ± 15% (p < 0.001) and 17 ± 8% (p = 0.025), respectively, while BP increased capillary density (CD) by 28 ± 24% (p = 0.048) from Pre to Post12. The present study shows no difference in performance between BP and “best practice”-TP of endurance training intensities using a cyclic, progressively increasing training load in trained cyclists. However, hematological and muscle capillary adaptations may differ.

Less Is More-Cyclists-Triathlete's 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback

Purpose: The purpose of this article was to (i) compare different modes of feedback (multiple vs. single) on 30 min cycling time-trial performance in non-cyclist’s and cyclists-triathletes, and (ii) investigate cyclists-triathlete’s information acquisition.

Methods: 20 participants (10 non-cyclists, 10 cyclists-triathletes) performed two 30 min self-paced cycling time-trials (TT, ∼5–7 days apart) with either a single feedback (elapsed time) or multiple feedback (power output, elapsed distance, elapsed time, cadence, speed, and heart rate). Cyclists-triathlete’s information acquisition was also monitored during the multiple feedback trial via an eye tracker. Perceptual measurements of task motivation, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect were collected every 5 min. Performance variables (power output, cadence, distance, speed) and heart rate were recorded continuously.

Results: Cyclists-triathletes average power output was greater compared to non-cyclists with both multiple feedback (227.99 ± 42.02 W; 137.27 ± 27.63 W; P < 0.05) and single feedback (287.9 ± 60.07 W; 131.13 ± 25.53 W). Non-cyclist’s performance did not differ between multiple and single feedback (p > 0.05). Whereas, cyclists-triathletes 30 min cycling time-trial performance was impaired with multiple feedback (227.99 ± 42.02 W) compared to single feedback (287.9 ± 60.07 W; p < 0.05), despite adopting and reporting a similar pacing strategy and perceptual responses (p > 0.05). Cyclists-triathlete’s primary and secondary objects of regard were power (64.95 s) and elapsed time (64.46 s). However, total glance time during multiple feedback decreased from the first 5 min (75.67 s) to the last 5 min (22.34 s).

Conclusion: Cyclists-triathletes indoor 30 min cycling TT performance was impaired with multiple feedback compared to single feedback. Whereas non-cyclist’s performance did not differ between multiple and single feedback. Cyclists-triathletes glanced at power and time which corresponds with the wireless sensor networks they use during training. However, total glance time during multiple feedback decreased over time, and therefore, overloading athletes with feedback may decrease performance in cyclists-triathletes.

High-Intensity Interval Training Shock Microcycle for Enhancing Sport Performance: A Brief Review

Dolci, F, Kilding, AE, Chivers, P, Piggott, B, and Hart, NH. High-intensity interval training shock microcycle for enhancing sport performance: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 1188-1196, 2020-High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is a powerful strategy to develop athletes' fitness and enhance endurance performance. Traditional HIIT interventions involve multiple microcycles (7-10 days long) of 2-3 HIIT sessions each, which have been commonly supported to improve athletic performance after a minimum period of 6 weeks training. Regardless of the efficacy of such an approach, in recent years, a higher frequency of HIIT sessions within a unique microcycle, commonly referred to as an HIIT shock microcycle, has been proposed as an alternative HIIT periodization strategy to induce greater and more efficient endurance adaptation in athletes. This review article provides an insight into this new HIIT periodization strategy by discussing (1) HIIT shock microcycle format and design; (2) the sustainability of this training strategy; (3) effects on performance and physiological parameters of endurance; and (4) potential mechanisms for improvements. Evidence advocates the sustainability and effectiveness of HIIT shock microcycle in different athletes to improve intermittent and continuous running/cycling performance and suggests mitochondria biogenesis as the main acute physiological adaptation following this intervention.