4. RECUPERACIÓN DEL PROCESO DESDE LAS VOCES DE TALITHA QUM
4.1 PARTICIPACIÓN
4.1.1. Empoderamiento y desarrollo humano
Subjects
A total of 14 subjects were recruited to participate in laboratory and field-based cycling tests. Self assessment of these athletes was gathered through a pre-study
questionnaire detailing cycling ability (determined by race category), as well as training habits (determined by hours trained per week), including cycling-specific training, cross training, etc., over the course of the previous year. Cycling experience was then
determined based on years spent competing and by races completed per year (see Table 2).
Results of the questionnaire showed that sixcyclists were designated as
professional or expert (Level 1), seven reported intermediate or sport (Level 2), and one cyclist was determined to be beginner (Level 3). The average time spent racing in a minimum of one off-road cycling event was 5.86 + 3.72 years, with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 13 years racing experience. Participants spent an average of 11.29 + 2.87 hrs per week training, and 3 individuals utilized a coach regularly. This volume of training was considered “peak training hours,” which took place during the spring and summer months. The majority of riders (e.g., 11 out of 14 subjects) reported year round training; however, all participants indicated maintaining at least moderate activity during the months not spent actively training.
Table 2 Race Category and Training Habits Subject Category Years
Racing
Hours
Training/Wk Use of Coach
Year Round Training
1 expert 7 10 Yes Yes
2 beginner 1 9 No Yes 3 expert 3 14 Yes No 4 sport 3 8 No Yes 5 expert 6 15 No Yes 6 sport 10 12 No Yes 7 sport 1 11 No Yes 8 sport 7 8 No Yes 9 sport 5 10 No No 10 sport 4 14 No No 11 expert 12 10 No Yes 12 sport 4 15 No Yes 13 expert 6 7 No Yes
14 expert 13 15 Yes Yes
Mean 5.86 11.29
SD 3.72 2.87
Min 1 7
Max 13 15
Full anthropometric data are presented in Table 3. Two subjects (numbers 7 and 10) failed to complete body composition testing. The average participant age was 37.86 + 9.06 y (range = 25 to 53 y). Average height (cm) was 179.43 + 6.17 (range = 170 to 191) with an average body mass (kg) of 75.08 + 7.48 (range = 66.1 to 86.8). Calculated average body composition (% body fat) was 13.3 + 6.41 (range = 2.1 to 23.6) with an average lean body mass (kg) of 63.4 + 5.4 (range = 52.25 to 72.54).
Table 3 Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample Subject Hgt (cm) Wgt(kg) LBM(kg) % BF Age 1 175 66.8 61.92 7.3 31 2 184 74.3 63.68 14.3 46 3 180 72 60.48 16 29 4 178 67 65.59 2.1 27 5 170 66.1 58.23 11.9 32 6 188 68.4 52.26 23.6 25 7* 183 84.5 - - 44 8 175 79.1 60.59 23.4 50 9 175 84.1 69.30 17.6 38 10* 191 86.8 - - 31 11 179 77.5 66.50 14.2 36 12 185 74.5 67.57 9.3 53 13 171 67 62.11 7.3 47 14 178 83 72.54 12.6 41 Mean 179.43 75.08 63.40 13.30 37.86 SD 6.17 7.48 5.40 6.41 9.06 Minimum 170 66.1 52.25 2.1 25 Maximum 191 86.8 72.54 23.6 53
* Subjects not completing body composition analysis
Laboratory Tests
Maximum Aerobic Capacity
Full incremental cycling test results for VO2max are presented in Table 4. The
average absolute maximum aerobic capacity (L·min-1) was 4.82 + 0.53 (range = 4.14 to
5.81). When scaled to body mass, participant average relative aerobic capacity was 64.33 mL·kg-1·min-1 + 6.31 (range = 52.8 to 74.10). The average maximum metabolic
equivalent (MET) obtained during VO2max testing was 18.39 + 1.81 (range = 15.10 to
Table 4 VO2max Results for the Sample
Subject Absolute VO2max (L/min) Relative VO2max (ml/kg/min) Mets 1 4.82 72.10 20.60 2 4.50 60.50 17.30 3 5.34 74.10 21.20 4 4.76 71.00 20.30 5 4.25 64.30 18.40 6 4.14 60.50 17.30 7 4.92 58.20 16.60 8 4.17 52.80 15.10 9 4.72 56.10 16.00 10 5.81 66.90 19.10 11 5.49 70.20 20.10 12 4.64 62.30 17.80 13 4.43 66.00 18.90 14 5.44 65.60 18.70 Mean 4.82 64.33 18.39 SD 0.53 6.31 1.81 Minimum 4.14 52.80 15.10 Maximum 5.81 74.10 21.20
Peak Aerobic Power
Full aerobic peak power results are presented in Table 5. Average peak aerobic power in watts (W) during the incremental cycling test was 390.64 + 42.32 (range = 333- 481) with an average relative peak power (W·kg-1) of 5.22 + 5.22 (range = 4.21-6.21).
Table 5 Aerobic Power Results for the Sample
Subject Absolute Peak Aerobic Power (W) Relative Peak Aerobic Power (W/kg)
1 415 6.21 2 356 4.79 3 430 5.97 4 362 5.4 5 363 5.49 6 350 5.12 7 395 4.67 8 333 4.21 9 385 4.58 10 481 5.54 11 442 5.65 12 387 5.19 13 350 5.22 14 420 5.06 Mean 390.64 5.22 SD 42.32 0.55 Minimum 333 4.21 Maximum 481 6.21
Maximum Anaerobic Power
Full Wingate results are presented in Table 6. Average maximum power in watts (W) during the Wingate test was 991.79 + 147.61 (range = 760 to 1203) with an average relative maximum power (W·kg-1) of 13.21 + 1.46 (range = 11.30 to 16.80). Average mean power (W) over the duration of the test was 653.79 + 76.72 (range = 566 to 804) with an average relative mean power (W·kg-1) of 8.73 + 0.69 (range = 7.60 to 9.90). Average decline in power output (W·sec-1), described as a fatigue index (drop in power from peak power to the completion of the test), was 18.97 + 5.94 (range = 8.9 to 30.7).
Table 6 Maximum Power Results for the Sample Subject Max Power
(W) Mean Power (W) Fatigue Index (W·sec-1) Rel. Max Power (W·kg-1) Rel. Mean Power (W·kg-1) 1 899.00 596.00 14.20 13.50 8.90 2 914.00 566.00 18.00 12.30 7.60 3 921.00 610.00 17.80 12.80 8.50 4 1123.00 660.00 26.60 16.80 9.90 5 870.00 579.00 17.60 13.20 8.80 6 777.00 594.00 11.10 11.40 8.70 7 1143.00 707.00 25.30 13.50 8.40 8 1010.00 605.00 19.50 12.80 7.60 9 1120.00 787.00 18.60 13.30 9.40 10 1146.00 701.00 21.90 13.20 8.10 11 1203.00 710.00 30.70 15.50 9.20 12 891.00 636.00 14.50 12.00 8.50 13 760.00 598.00 8.90 11.30 8.90 14 1108.00 804.00 20.90 13.30 9.70 Mean 991.79 653.79 18.97 13.21 8.73 SD 147.61 76.72 5.94 1.46 0.69 Minimum 760.00 566.00 8.90 11.30 7.60 Maximum 1203.00 804.00 30.70 16.80 9.90 Notes:
Rel. Max Power – Relative maximum power when scaled to body mass Rel. Mean Power – Relative average power when scaled to body mass
Field Test
Time Trial
All participants who attempted the time trial did so without any report of mechanical or technical problems. Two subjects failed to attempt the time trial due to injury outside of testing. Course conditions were noted as being both dry and without compromise. Additionally, no rider reported the need to dismount during the time trial for any reason; thus, all attempts were completed without interruption.
Full time trial results are presented in Table 7. Average participant time to complete the time trial (seconds) was 944.17 + 126.60 (range = 746 to 1206). The average for absolute vertically ascended feet (ft·sec-1) was 0.93 + 0.12 (range = 0.72- 1.16) with an average relative VFS (ft·sec-1·kg-1) of 0.0126 + 0.0022 (range = 0.0096 to 0.073).
Table 7 Time Trial Results for the Sample
Subject Time Trial (sec) Absolute VFS (ft·sec-1) Relative VFS (ft·sec-1·kg-1) 1 746.00 1.16 0.0173 2 1206.00 0.72 0.0096 3* - - - 4 946.00 0.91 0.0136 5 927.00 0.93 0.0141 6 982.00 0.88 0.0128 7* - - - 8 1087.00 0.79 0.0100 9 1054.00 0.82 0.0097 10 886.00 0.97 0.0112 11 820.00 1.05 0.0136 12 953.00 0.91 0.0122 13 891.00 0.97 0.0145 14 832.00 1.04 0.0125 Mean 944.17 0.93 0.0126 SD 126.60 0.12 0.0022 Minimum 746.00 0.72 0.0096 Maximum 1206.00 1.16 0.0173
*Subjects not completing time trial
Correlations
Full correlation data between laboratory and field tests are presented in Table 8. Most notably, relative peak power was most highly correlated with all measures of time trial performance with r-values of -0.803, 0.828, and 843, for time trial, absolute VFS,
and relative VFS, respectively. Additionally, relative maximum aerobic capacity
(VO2max) and METS were significantly correlated with Time Trial (r = -0.773 and -0.770,
respectively), absolute VFS (r = 0.790 and 0.787, respectively), and relative VFS (r = 0.775 and 0.778, respectively. Correlations between absolute VO2max and time trial,
absolute VFS, and relative VFS were lower than the aforementioned correlations for relative values. Significant correlations were also seen between absolute peak power and time trial (r=0.595) and absolute peak power and absolute VFS (r=0.603). Absolute VO2max and relative mean power during the Wingate were moderately correlated with
time to complete the time trial, though these values were statistically insignificant. Table 8 Correlations Between Laboratory and Field Tests in the Sample(r)
Time Trial AbsVFS RelVFS
AbsVO2 -.519 .521 .032 RelVO2 -.773** .790** .775** Mets -.770** .787** .778** AbsPPower -.595* .603* .138 RelPPower -.803** .828** .843** Max Power -.132 .115 -.299 Mean Power -.254 .218 -.254 Fatigue Index -.103 .090 -.169 RelMaxPower -.276 .263 .184 RelMeanPower -.543 .495 .441
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Notes:
AbsVO2 – Absolute VO2max (L·min-1)
RelVO2 – Relative VO2max (mL·kg·min-1)
Mets – Metabolic Equivalents
AbsPPower – Peak aerobic power during incremental cycling test
RelPPower – Relative peak aerobic power during incremental cycling test Max Power – Maximum power output during Wingate Test (W)
Mean Power – Average power output during Wingate Test (W)
Fatigue Index – Percent decline in power output from beginning to end of Wingate RelMaxPower – Maximum power scaled to body mass (W/kg)
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of non-elite male mountain bike racers, compare lab-based testing methods to field-based methods, determine which measures are the best predictors of time trial success, and examine whether relative measures of fitness are better predictors of cycling performance compared to absolute measures. The most important findings of this study were that: (a) these athletes were comparable to previously studied samples and demonstrated high absolute and relative aerobic capacity and power, as well as anaerobic power, (b) time trial (seconds) was significantly correlated with relative VO2max and
METS, and both absolute and relative peak aerobic power, meaning that relative VO2max,
METS, absolute peak power, and relative peak power are effective predictors of performance on field tests that simulate racing conditions, and (c) relative VO2max and
relative peak aerobic power were better predictors of off-road cycling performance on a time trial compared to absolute VO2max and absolute peak aerobic power.
The 14 non-elite riders in this sample who had been racing an average of more than 5 years and who trained approximately 11.29 + 2.87 hours per week were similar to previous samples of non-elite riders (age = 37.86y; height = 179.43cm weight = 75.08kg; %bf = 13.3). When reviewing anthropometric data specifically, all participants
demonstrated values for height, weight, lean body mass, and body composition that were consistent with a high level of training. This is in agreement with Lee et al. (2002) who
has described both physical and physiological characteristics of competitive mountain bikers. These results confirm an appropriately selected subject pool such that valid measures were taken and results can be generalized accordingly. This study also provides additional data describing the anthropometric uniqueness of off-road cyclists.
The application of laboratory tests to determine athletic ability in endurance athletes has been a mainstay of assessment for some time now. The challenge, however, has been linking lab results to competitive performance. In off-road cycling, specifically cross-country mountain biking, measures of maximum aerobic capacity, peak aerobic power output, maximum anaerobic power and the relative expression of these numbers based on rider weight have been identified as useful assessment tools (Gregory et al., 2007; Impellizzeri et al., 2002; Impellizzeri & Marcora, 2007; Impellizzeri et al., 2005a; Impellizzeri et al., 2005b; Lee et al., 2002; Prins et al., 2007; Wilber et al., 1997). The common finding of many recent studies has been that relative measures (when scaled to body mass), rather than absolute values are more valuable for determining cycling ability (Gregory et al., 2007). This is, in part, thought to be the result of improved exercise economy or efficiency in the case of higher relative lab values. Despite this evidence, it is a challenge to apply lab findings to live competition. This investigation was designed to include a field cycling test and determine its usefulness in assessing off-road cycling ability, and what its relationship was to laboratory test values.
Although time trial formats are often used in stage races on the road, similar competitions are rarely, if ever, completed by cross country mountain bike riders. Of those that do occur, to our knowledge, they are primarily executed by downhill mountain
bikers and assess a rider’s ability to descend rather than ascend. Thus, this study included an uphill time trial to provide rationale for its use.
Both mean values for absolute and relative VO2max, 4.82 L·min-1 and 64.33 ml·kg- 1·min-1, respectively, are similar to prior studies that used an incremental cycling test to
exhaustion. Specifically, Baron (2001) demonstrated a mean relative VO2max of 68.4 +
3.8 ml·kg-1·min-1 among a group of National and World Cup mountain bikers, and Gregory et al. (2007) studied a sample of trained but non-elite male mountain bikers and reported their VO2max as 64.8 ml·kg-1·min-1.
Peak aerobic power obtained during the same incremental cycling test is consistent with previous research as well. From the sample, an average absolute peak power of 390.64 W was observed. This most closely mirrors Impellizerri et al. (2005b) who reported an average peak power among 13 male U23 UCI riders of 392 W.
Additionally, our sample demonstrated an average relative peak aerobic power of 5.22 W·kg-1, which is in accordance with research done by both Gregory et al. (2007) and Prins et al. (2007) who showed average relative peak power of 5.1 W·kg-1 among 11 elite cross-country riders and 8 cross-country riders with 2 years racing experience
respectively (see Table 1).
Maximum anaerobic power, when obtained through a Wingate test, was also in agreement with earlier research. Among the current sample, subjects had an average maximal power output of 991.79 W, which most closely resembles the values obtained by Tanaka et al. (1993) who demonstrated an average max power of 994.07, 985.17, and 923.41 among category 2, 3, and 4 cyclists, respectively. Relative max power reported by Tanaka et al. (1993) was also closely related to the current sample averaging 13.21
W·kg-1, compared to 13.86, 13.55, and 12.80 W·kg-1 among category 2, 3, and 4 cyclists, respectively (Tanaka et al., 1993).
The second finding of this study was that lab-based values positively correlated with field-based measures of cycling performance. More specifically, results show that relative values for maximum aerobic capacity (ml·kg-1·min-1) and peak aerobic power (W·kg-1) were more highly correlated with time trial performance measures (time in seconds, absolute VFS, and relative VFS) than was absolute VO2max (L·min-1) and
absolute peak power (W). Of these relationships, relative peak power (W·kg-1) when correlated with relative VFS (ft·sec-1·kg-1), absolute VFS (ft·sec-1), and time trial (sec) demonstrated the highest coefficients (r=0.843, r=0.828, and r=-0.803, respectively). Relative VO2max (mL·kg-1·min-1) and absolute VFS (ft·sec-1) also demonstrated a
significantly high correlation (r=0.790). Looking at relative VO2max and its relationship
to time trial (seconds) and relative VFS, correlations of -0.773 and 0.774 were observed. Absolute VO2max was moderately correlated with time trial (seconds) and absolute VFS, r
= -0.519 and 0.521 respectively, although this relationship was lower and not statistically significant. There was essentially no relationship between absolute VO2max and relative
VFS (r=-0.030).
These findings suggest two unique implications. First, improvements in relative aerobic capacity and peak power may improve cross-country race performance. Second, that assessing a rate of ascent (VFS) may effectively demonstrate a mountain bikers climbing ability. Specifically, improvements in relative aerobic values (VO2max and peak
power), either through increasing aerobic performance or through losing body mass while maintaining a given aerobic capacity/power may improve a cyclists exercise economy
and thus climbing ability. Therefore, the assessment and development of improved relative aerobic variables should be a priority when training or evaluating cyclists.
The use of a climbing assessment (i.e., VFS) may be an appropriate tool for researchers, coaches, and athletes. Although the concrete value of VFS may show little promise, correlational data does demonstrate a positive relationship between lab values and TT performance. Therefore, athletes and coaches may want to consider utilizing a pre-determined course of their choosing to assess improvements in fitness when laboratory measurements are unavailable. This is particularly useful for coaches and athletes who do not have access or the means to conduct laboratory testing.
An interesting and somewhat unique finding of this study was that relative mean power output (W·kg-1) as determined throughout the duration of the Wingate test was more highly correlated with all measures of time trial performance than relative
maximum power during the Wingate. When correlations between relative mean power output and overall time trial performance (r=-0.543), absolute VFS (r=0.495), and relative VFS (r=0.441) were examined, correlations were low to moderate. In contrast, correlations between relative maximum power output and time trial performance, absolute VFS and relative VFS were -0.276, 0.263, and 0.186, respectively. This result suggests that a cyclist’s ability to maintain high levels of relative power output for a given amount of time (30-seconds) is a more important factor in determining time trial performance than relative peak power during the same test. This finding is in agreement with studies that have suggested higher sustained intensity levels are required of more successful mountain bikers (Impellizzeri et al., 2002; Wirnitzer and Kornexl, 2008).
It is worth noting that absolute VFS was more highly related to relative maximum power output (r=0.263) and relative mean power output (r=0.495) than was relative VFS when scaled to body mass (r = 0.186 and 0.441, respectively). These findings do not concur with studies that have shown higher correlations when lab values are scaled to body mass, rather than taken absolutely (Impellizzeri et al., 2005b). This is also contradictory to the hypothesis of this study, which had assumed that values relative to body mass would more effectively predict field test performance. Ultimately this study shows that the fastest time trial is the fasted ascent, regardless of body mass or body composition.
This evidence then lends itself to the idea that in addition to training cyclists to their upper limit of power output (maximum power), attention should be paid to
developing their ability to maintain the highest level of power over a given time (aerobic and anaerobic power). This would make sense, due to the highly variable nature of off- road racing with courses containing several sections requiring a cyclist to utilize a large amount of power for short bursts of time (i.e., short repeated climbs).
Conclusions
In the world of coaching and training, the search for an ideal assessment of athletic ability is often sought. For most sports or competitions, however, the complexity of the event does not lend itself to a single measure of performance other than outcome (winning or losing). This is without a doubt a concept consistent within the sport of off- road cycling.
With the environment of sports science rapidly evolving and new testing methods becoming available, it is not only important to continue searching for these tools but also
to validate and use them in conjunction with tests that have proven successful in the past. One conclusion made by this research is that no single test can absolutely define a
cyclists ability to perform in a given race or event. Rather, tests must be viewed
collectively in order to gain a more global view of an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. With that knowledge in hand, it may be beneficial to train all aspects of cycling ability to include maximum power and the ability to maintain and repeat similar efforts.
A second conclusion that can be made from the current study is that a tool, such as a time trial (VFS), may be useful in determining in part a cyclist’s ability outside of the laboratory. Moreover, it may be more useful to determine improvements in fitness or from training when repeated and compared to previous results. For example, in addition to tracking time of VFS, it would be useful to calculate heart rate during this activity to observe changes in heart rate that might occur with consistent training. It may also be helpful to track VFS/HR average during the trial as another measure of fitness that might effectively predict field test performance of off-road cyclists. It is recommended that if a time trial (or similar protocol) is to be used in the assessment of an athlete’s ability, it must be frequently performed in order to gauge progress from his or her current training regimen.
Lastly, when looking practically at VFS, both absolutely and relatively, the usefulness is brought into question. Due to the fact that time is the ultimate factor in a race, and the small scale of relative VFS measurements, its value may be difficult to apply to training or assessment. However, it was demonstrated that when compared to lab values, absolute VFS was more highly correlated than was relative VFS, most likely due to the fact that absolute VFS most closely represents overall outcome (time to finish).
The one exception demonstrated in this study was seen when comparing r-values of relative and absolute VFS with relative peak power. Of the two, relative VFS was more highly correlated with relative peak power than was absolute VFS (0.843 and 0.828, respectively), potentially due to the comparison of two relative measures.
One possible solution to the small expression of VFS would be to extrapolate it to a vertical distance over the period of an hour rather than by minute. By doing this, coaches and athletes may have a more practical measure of ability, while correlations should be maintained. This could also allow for a longer time trial (or test efforts), and more general application of the information gathered. Another way to apply VFS may be to use it to judge fatigue or recovery. If prior to a race an athlete has a given VFS on a particular course, and that measure is repeated, faster or slower times may indicate a increased need to recover before the competition. In other words, if before a live competition a cyclist’s VFS is decreased, that rider may benefit from a break in training