International journal of sports physiology and performance · 2024
Performance and Psychophysiological Effects of Light-Guided Pacing During a 5000-m Run.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Casado Arturo, Hornillos Alberto, Foster Carl, Ranieri Luis E, Renfree Andrew, Domínguez Raúl
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In world-class middle- and long-distance running races, a Wavelight signal has recently been used as a pacing guide for setting records. The aim of the present study was to compare performance and psychophysiological effects between light-guided, drafting, and nonassisted pacing conditions in distance runners.
METHODS: Fifteen male middle- and long-distance runners of national and regional standard ran three 5000-m time trials in a counterbalanced order with the following pacing distribution: the first 4000 m and last 1000 m were covered at submaximal and maximal intensities, respectively. The 3 trials (conditions) were (1) self-paced, (2) guided by a light signal, and (3) guided by a cyclist in front (drafting condition). Pace, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and affective valence were recorded every 500 m.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between pacing-light and self-paced conditions. Running time was shorter in the drafting versus self-paced condition in the final 500-m section (P = .031; d = 0.76). No differences were found between drafting and light conditions. Similarly, whereas 9 out of 10 significant differences in terms of lower heart rate, or rating of perceived exertion, or higher affective valence responses were found in the drafting versus self-paced condition (P = .004-.041; d = 0.63-1.39), only 4 were found across the tests in the drafting versus light condition (P = .005-.016; d = 0.66-0.84).
CONCLUSION: Light-guided pacing did not influence performance or psychophysiological responses in distance runners during a 5000-m test, but drafting produced a large effect.
METHODS: Fifteen male middle- and long-distance runners of national and regional standard ran three 5000-m time trials in a counterbalanced order with the following pacing distribution: the first 4000 m and last 1000 m were covered at submaximal and maximal intensities, respectively. The 3 trials (conditions) were (1) self-paced, (2) guided by a light signal, and (3) guided by a cyclist in front (drafting condition). Pace, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and affective valence were recorded every 500 m.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between pacing-light and self-paced conditions. Running time was shorter in the drafting versus self-paced condition in the final 500-m section (P = .031; d = 0.76). No differences were found between drafting and light conditions. Similarly, whereas 9 out of 10 significant differences in terms of lower heart rate, or rating of perceived exertion, or higher affective valence responses were found in the drafting versus self-paced condition (P = .004-.041; d = 0.63-1.39), only 4 were found across the tests in the drafting versus light condition (P = .005-.016; d = 0.66-0.84).
CONCLUSION: Light-guided pacing did not influence performance or psychophysiological responses in distance runners during a 5000-m test, but drafting produced a large effect.