↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of performance in a 4-h mountain-bike race

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Sports Sciences, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Predictors of performance in a 4-h mountain-bike race
Published in
Journal of Sports Sciences, April 2017
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2017.1313999
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study aimed to cross validate previously developed predictive models of mountain biking performance in a new cohort of mountain bikers during a 4-h event (XC4H). Eight amateur XC4H cyclists completed a multidimensional assessment battery including a power profile assessment that consisted of maximal efforts between 6 and 600 s, maximal hand grip strength assessments, a video-based decision-making test as well as a XC4H race. A multiple linear regression model was found to predict XC4H performance with good accuracy (R(2) = 0.99; P < 0.01). This model consisted of [Formula: see text] relative to total cycling mass (body mass including competition clothing and bicycle mass), maximum power output sustained over 60 s relative to total cycling mass, peak left hand grip strength and two-line decision-making score. Previous models for Olympic distance MTB performance demonstrated merit (R(2) = 0.93; P > 0.05) although subtle changes improved the fit, significance and normal distribution of residuals within the model (R(2) = 0.99; P < 0.01), highlighting differences between the disciplines. The high level of predictive accuracy of the new XC4H model further supports the use of a multidimensional approach in predicting MTB performance. The difference between the new, XC4H and previous Olympic MTB predictive models demonstrates subtle differences in physiological requirements and performance predictors between the two MTB disciplines.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 25 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 24 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,192,922
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#1,461
of 4,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,706
of 344,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#23
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.