↓ Skip to main content

Familiarization Protocol Influences Reproducibility of 20-km Cycling Time-Trial Performance in Novice Participants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
68 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.
Title
Familiarization Protocol Influences Reproducibility of 20-km Cycling Time-Trial Performance in Novice Participants
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew W. Hibbert, François Billaut, Matthew C. Varley, Remco C. J. Polman

Abstract

Introduction: Exercise performance is reproducible in experienced athletes; however, less trained participants exhibit greater variability in performance and pacing. To reduce variability, it is common practice to complete a familiarization prior to experimental testing. However, there are no clear guidelines for familiarizing novice participants to a cycling time-trial (TT), and research findings from novice populations may still be influenced by learning effects. Accordingly, the aims of this study were to establish the variability between TTs after administering differing familiarization protocols (duration or type) and to establish the number of familiarization trials required to limit variability over multiple trials. Methods: Thirty recreationally active participants, with no prior experience of a TT, performed a 20-km cycling TT on five separate occasions, after completing either a full (FF, 20-km TT, n = 10), a half (HF, 10-km TT, n = 10) or an equipment familiarization (EF, 5-min cycling, n = 10). Results: Variability of TT duration across five TTs was the lowest after completing FF (P = 0.69, η p(2) = 0.05) compared to HF (P = 0.08, η p(2) = 0.26) and EF (P = 0.07, η p(2) = 0.21). In the FF group after TT2, the effect size for changes in TT duration was small (d < 0.49). There were large differences between later TTs in HF (d = 1.02, TT3-TT4) and EF (d = 1.12, TT4-TT5). The variability in mean power output profiles between trials was lowest within FF, with a similar pacing profile reproduced between TT3-TT5. Discussion: Familiarization of the exercise protocol influenced reproducibility of pacing and performance over multiple, maximal TTs, with best results obtained after a full experience of the exercise compared to HF and EF. The difference of TT1 to later TTs indicates that one familiarization is not adequate in reducing the variability of performance for novice participants. After the FF and an additional TT, performance changes between TTs were small, however, a reproducible pacing profile was not developed until after the FF and two additional TTs. These findings indicate that a minimum of three full familiarizations are necessary for novice participants to limit systematic error before experimental testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 22%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Researcher 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 30 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,558,573
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,709
of 13,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,830
of 315,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#108
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 315,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 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 58% of its contemporaries.