Search

Objectives: This study examined how track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes: develop knowledge and practices; value performance areas; and, implement research into practice., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Methods: An online REDCap survey of track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes was conducted involving questions related to demographics, performance area importance, knowledge acquisition and application, research relevance, and research direction., Results: A total of 159 responses were received from coaches (n = 55), practitioners (n = 29), and athletes (n = 75). Participants' highest track cycling competition level involvement ranged from local/regional (12.7%) to Olympic/Paralympic (39.9%). Respondents primarily develop practices by observing 'the sport' or 'others competing/working in it' (both 85.8%). Practitioners develop practices through self-guided learning (96.4%). The primary reason for practice use was prior experience (84.9%), whilst individuals were least likely to use practices resulting in marginal gains with potentially negative outcomes (27.3%). Areas of greatest perceived importance were Aerodynamics, Strength & Conditioning, and Tactics (all >96% agreed/strongly agreed). Scientific evidence for Tactics (30%) and Mental Skills (26%) was perceived to be lacking, resulting in greater reliance on personal experience (74% and 62%, respectively) to inform training decisions. The main barrier to implementing research into practice was athlete buy-in (84.3%)., Conclusions: Within track cycling, informal learning was most popular amongst respondents. Greater reliance on personal experience within evidence-based practice for many performance areas aligns with limited existing research. Most respondents reported multiple barriers affecting research implementation in practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest statement None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To profile the training characteristics of an elite team pursuit cycling squad and assess variations in training intensity and load accumulation across the 36-week period prior to a world-record performance at the 2018 Commonwealth Games., Methods: Training data of 5 male track endurance cyclists (mean [SD]; age 21.9 [3.52] y; 4.4 [0.16] W·kg-1 at anaerobic threshold; 6.2 [0.28] W·kg-1 maximal oxygen uptake 68.7 [2.99] mL kg·min-1) were analyzed with weekly total training volume and heart rate, power output, and torque intensity distributions calculated with reference to their 3:49.804 min:s.ms performance requirements for a 4-km team pursuit., Results: Athletes completed 543 (37) h-1 of training across 436 (16) sessions. On-bike activities accounted for 69.9% of all training sessions, with participants cycling 11,246 (1139) km-1 in the training period of interest, whereas 12.7% of sessions involved gym/strength training. A pyramidal intensity distribution was evident with over 65% and 70% of training, respectively, performed at low-intensity zone heart rate and power output, whereas 5.3% and 7.7% of training was performed above anaerobic threshold. The athletes accumulated 4.4% of total training volume at, or above, their world-record team pursuit lead position torque (55 N·m)., Conclusions: These data provide updated and novel insight to the power and torque demands and load accumulation contributing to world-record team pursuit performance. Although the observed pyramidal intensity distribution is common in endurance sports, the lack of shift toward a polarized intensity distribution during taper and competition peaking differs from previous research.

Purpose: To compare the training characteristics of an elite team pursuit cycling squad in the 3-month preparation phases prior to 2 successive world-record (WR) performances., Methods: Training data of 5 male track endurance cyclists (mean [SD]; age 23.4 [3.46] y; body mass 80.2 [2.74] kg; 4.5 [0.17] W·kg-1 at LT2; maximal aerobic power 6.2 [0.27] W·kg-1; maximal oxygen uptake 65.9 [2.89] mL·kg-1·min-1) were analyzed with weekly total training volume by training type and heart rate, power output, and torque intensity distributions calculated with reference to the respective WRs' performance requirements., Results: Athletes completed 805 (82.81) and 725 (68.40) min·wk-1 of training, respectively, in each season. In the second season, there was a 32% increase in total track volume, although track sessions were shorter (ie, greater frequency) in the second season. A pyramidal intensity distribution was consistent across both seasons, with 81% of training, on average, performed below LT1 power output each week, whereas 6% of training was performed above LT2. Athletes accumulated greater volume above WR team pursuit lead power (2.4% vs 0.9%) and torque (6.2% vs 3.2%) in 2019. In one athlete, mean single-leg-press peak rate of force development was 71% and 46% higher at mid- and late-phases, respectively, during the preparation period., Conclusions: These findings provide novel insights into the common and contrasting methods contributing to successive WR team pursuit performances. Greater accumulation of volume above race-specific power and torque (eg, team pursuit lead), as well as improved neuromuscular force-generating capacities, may be worthy of investigation for implementation in training programs.

Heat is a major stressor during exercise, though its value in driving adaptation is not well understood. Muscle heating can upregulate pathways facilitating protein synthesis and could thereby enhance effects of exercise training, however, few studies have investigated this possibility. We examined whether heating active muscle during resistance training differentially affected physical and functional adaptations. Within a randomised contralateral-limb control study, ten healthy, resistance-untrained individuals (21 ± 3 y; 5 female) completed 30 sessions of progressive resistance training (12 weeks), performing 4 × 8 unilateral knee extensions at 70% of 1RM. One randomly-allocated thigh was heated during, and for 20 min after, each session using an electric pad eliciting muscle temperatures of >38 °C (HOT); the contralateral limb remained unheated (CON). Training intensity was progressed using 4-weekly strength assessments. Quadricep lean mass (measured using DXA) increased by 15 ± 7% in HOT ( p = 0.00) and 15 ± 6% in CON ( p = 0.00); the difference being trivial ( p = 0.94). Peak isokinetic torque at 90°.s -1 increased by 30 ± 25% (HOT; p = 0.00) and 34 ± 33% (CON; p = 0.01), with no difference ( p = 0.84) between limbs. Rate of torque development increased ∼40%, with no difference between limbs ( p = 0.73). The increase in 3-RM strength was also similar in HOT (75 ± 16%) and CON (71 ± 14%; p = 0.80 for difference). No differences in mass or strength changes were evident between sexes. In conclusion, supplemental heating of active muscle during and after each bout of resistance training showed no clear positive (or negative) effect on training-induced hypertrophy or function.