LAUSR

In cycling, there is a body of evidence that supports that an all-out start strategy is superior to an even-pacing strategy, but it is unknown whether an all-out start strategy is superior to a self-paced strategy. In the present study, we investigated the effects of three different pacing strategies on 4-km cycling time trial performance. After preliminary trials (familiarization trials and a baseline 4-km cycling time trial), in a randomized and counterbalanced order, twelve male cyclists (32.3±7.2 years old, maximum rate of O2 uptake (V̇O2peak) 4.3±0.4 L/min) completed: 1) a self-paced 4-km cycling time trial; 2) an all-out start (∼10 s), followed by maintenance of the average baseline trial power for the first km and self-paced cycling for the remaining trial (all-out+mean); and 3) an all-out start (∼10 s), followed by a power 5% above the average baseline trial power for the first km and self-paced cycling for the remaining trial (all-out+5%mean). Although there was a significant interaction between power and distance (P=0.001) with different power distribution profiles throughout the trial, there was no significant difference (P=0.99) between the three strategies for overall exercise performance (self-paced 379.8±13.9 s, all-out+mean 380.0±16.0 s, and all-out+5%mean 380.2±11.5 s). Oxygen uptake, rating of perceived effort, and heart rate were also similar across the pacing strategies. Different all-out start strategies did not confer additional benefits to performance compared to a self-paced strategy.