Article

# Rollers Versus Trainers: 10–Km Time Trial

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

## Abstract

The primary aim of this investigation was to determine which cycling training device, Rollers or Trainers, was most effective in improving 10-km time trial. Eight male and 6 female volunteers (N = 14; age = 23.6 ± 4.6 yrs; height = 172.7 ± 9.9 cm; body mass = 68.4 ± 10.4 kg; % body fat = 16.9 ± 7.7; VO2max = 61.0 ± 9.4 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) provided informed consent prior to participation. Participants performed a10-km time trial at baseline and were then randomly assigned into one of three groups: Rollers (R), Trainers (T), or Control (C). Participants assigned to the R or T groups attended 24 supervised workout sessions throughout an 8-wk period (F: 3 days/week; I: 65–80% HRmax; D: 40 min; M: R or T). There were no significant differences in baseline 10-km time trial between R, T, and C groups [F(2,12) = 0.34, p = .72]. There was a significant difference in 10-km time trial improvement between groups post-assessment when controlling for baseline values (F = 17.04, p <.001). R participants improved by 20.4s [t(4) = 4.86, p = .008] and T participants improved by 12.8s [t(4) = 4.57, p = .01], while there was no significant improvement for subjects in C. Participants using R and T displayed significant decrements in time with respect to the 10-km time trial. However, R had a greater improvement in 10-km time trial when compared to T.

## No full-text available

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Article
Cycling can be performed on the road or indoors on stationary ergometers. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in cycling efficiency, muscle activity and pedal forces during cycling on a stationary turbo trainer compared with a treadmill. 19 male cyclists cycled on a stationary turbo trainer and on a treadmill at 150, 200 and 250 W. Cycling efficiency was determined using the Douglas bags, muscle activity patterns were determined using surface electromyography and pedal forces were recorded with instrumented pedals. Treadmill cycling induced a larger muscular contribution from Gastrocnemius Lateralis, Biceps Femoris and Gluteus Maximus of respectively 14%, 19% and 10% compared with turbo trainer cycling (p<0.05). Conversely, Turbo trainer cycling induced larger muscular contribution from Vastus Lateralis, Rectus Femoris and Tibialis Anterior of respectively 7%, 17% and 14% compared with treadmill cycling (p<0.05). The alterations in muscle activity resulted in a better distribution of power during the pedal revolution, as determined by an increased Dead Centre size (p<0.05). Despite the alterations in muscle activity and pedalling technique, no difference in efficiency between treadmill (18.8±0.7%) and turbo trainer (18.5±0.6%) cycling was observed. These results suggest that cycling technique and type of ergometer can be altered without affecting cycling efficiency.
Full-text available
Article
This study was undertaken to examine the effect of different pedalling cadences upon various physiological responses during endurance cycling exercise. Eight well-trained triathletes cycled three times for 30 min each at an intensity corresponding to 80% of their maximal aerobic power output. The first test was performed at a freely chosen cadence (FCC); two others at FCC–20% and FCC+20%, which corresponded approximately to the range of cadences habitually used by road racing cyclists. The mean (SD) FCC, FCC–20% and FCC+20% were equal to 86 (4), 69 (3) and 103 (5) rpm respectively. Heart rate (HR), oxygen uptake ($$\dot V{\rm O}_{\rm 2}$$ ), minute ventilation ($$\dot V_{\rm E}$$ ) and respiratory exchange ratio (R) were analysed during three periods: between the 4th and 5th, 14th and 15th, and 29th and 30th min. A significant effect of time (P<0.01) was found at the three cadences for HR, $$\dot V{\rm O}_{\rm 2}$$ . The $$\dot V_{\rm E}$$ and R were significantly (P<0.05) greater at FCC+20% compared to FCC–20% at the 5th and 15th min but not at the 30th min. Nevertheless, no significant effect of cadence was observed in HR and $$\dot V{\rm O}_{\rm 2}$$ . These results suggest that, during high intensity exercise such as that encountered during a time-trial race, well-trained triathletes can easily adapt to the changes in cadence allowed by the classical gear ratios used in practice.
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory versus outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session, and two experimental trials consisting of one laboratory and one outdoor session, in a randomized order. Participants were given a standardized statement instructing them to give the same perceived effort for both the laboratory and outdoor 40 km trials. Variables measured include power output, heart rate (HR), core temperature, skin temperature, body weight, urine specific gravity (USG), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), attentional focus, and environmental conditions. Wind speed was higher in the outdoor trial than the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs 0.0 ± 0.0 m · s, p = 0.02) while all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and heart rate (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 bpm, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, while skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than the laboratory trial (31.4 ± 0.3 vs. 33.0 ± 0.2 °C, respectively, p < 0.001), thus creating a larger thermal gradient between the core and skin outdoors. No significant differences in body weight, urine specific gravity, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than laboratory cycling, despite similar environmental conditions and perceived exertion. In light of this, cyclists may want to ride at a higher perceived exertion in indoor settings to acquire the same benefit as they would from an outdoor ride.
Article
This study was designed to examine the biomechanical and physiological responses between cycling on the Axiom stationary ergometer (Axiom, Elite, Fontaniva, Italy) vs. field conditions for both uphill and level ground cycling. Nine cyclists performed cycling bouts in the laboratory on an Axiom stationary ergometer and on their personal road bikes in actual road cycling conditions in the field with three pedaling cadences during uphill and level cycling. Gross efficiency and cycling economy were lower (-10%) for the Axiom stationary ergometer compared with the field. The preferred pedaling cadence was higher for the Axiom stationary ergometer conditions compared with the field conditions only for uphill cycling. Our data suggests that simulated cycling using the Axiom stationary ergometer differs from actual cycling in the field. These results should be taken into account notably for improving the precision of the model of cycling performance, and when it is necessary to compare two cycling test conditions (field/laboratory, using different ergometers).
Article