Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance

James E. Peterman, Allen C. Lim, Ryan I. Ignatz, Andrew G. Edwards, William C. Byrnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Drag area (Ad) is a primary factor determining aerodynamic resistance during level cycling and is therefore a key determinant of level time trial performance. However, Ad has traditionally been difficult to measure. Our purpose was to determine the value of adding field-measured Ad as a correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In the field, 19 male cyclists performed a level (22.1 km) time trial. Separately, field-determined Ad and rolling resistance were calculated for subjects along with projected frontal area assessed directly (AP) and indirectly (Est AP). Also, a graded exercise test was performed to determine VO2 peak, lactate threshold (LT), and economy. VO2 peak (l min-1) and power at LT were significantly correlated to power measured during the time trial (r = 0.83 and 0.69, respectively) but were not significantly correlated to performance time (r = -0.42 and-0.45). The correlation with performance time improved significantly (p < 0.05) when these variables were normalized to Ad. Of note, Ad alone was better correlated to performance time (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) than any combination of non-normalized physiological measure. The best correlate with performance time was field-measured power output during the time trial normalized to Ad (r = -0.92). AP only accounted for 54% of the variability in Ad. Accordingly, the correlation to performance time was significantly lower using power normalized to AP (r = -0.75) or Est AP (r = -0.71). In conclusion, unless normalized to Ad, level time trial performance in the field was not highly correlated to common laboratory measures. Furthermore, our field-measured Ad is easy to determine and was the single best predictor of level time trial performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere1144
JournalPeerJ
Volume2015
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Drag
Lactic Acid
Rolling resistance
lactates
Aerodynamics
exercise test
aerodynamics
Exercise Test

Keywords

  • Drag coefficient
  • Exercise physiology
  • Field testing
  • Power meter
  • Power output
  • Predicting performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance. / Peterman, James E.; Lim, Allen C.; Ignatz, Ryan I.; Edwards, Andrew G.; Byrnes, William C.

In: PeerJ, Vol. 2015, No. 8, e1144, 01.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peterman, James E. ; Lim, Allen C. ; Ignatz, Ryan I. ; Edwards, Andrew G. ; Byrnes, William C. / Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In: PeerJ. 2015 ; Vol. 2015, No. 8.
@article{4000536e4ce44a6e98065cded4f79998,
title = "Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance",
abstract = "Drag area (Ad) is a primary factor determining aerodynamic resistance during level cycling and is therefore a key determinant of level time trial performance. However, Ad has traditionally been difficult to measure. Our purpose was to determine the value of adding field-measured Ad as a correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In the field, 19 male cyclists performed a level (22.1 km) time trial. Separately, field-determined Ad and rolling resistance were calculated for subjects along with projected frontal area assessed directly (AP) and indirectly (Est AP). Also, a graded exercise test was performed to determine VO2 peak, lactate threshold (LT), and economy. VO2 peak (l min-1) and power at LT were significantly correlated to power measured during the time trial (r = 0.83 and 0.69, respectively) but were not significantly correlated to performance time (r = -0.42 and-0.45). The correlation with performance time improved significantly (p < 0.05) when these variables were normalized to Ad. Of note, Ad alone was better correlated to performance time (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) than any combination of non-normalized physiological measure. The best correlate with performance time was field-measured power output during the time trial normalized to Ad (r = -0.92). AP only accounted for 54{\%} of the variability in Ad. Accordingly, the correlation to performance time was significantly lower using power normalized to AP (r = -0.75) or Est AP (r = -0.71). In conclusion, unless normalized to Ad, level time trial performance in the field was not highly correlated to common laboratory measures. Furthermore, our field-measured Ad is easy to determine and was the single best predictor of level time trial performance.",
keywords = "Drag coefficient, Exercise physiology, Field testing, Power meter, Power output, Predicting performance",
author = "Peterman, {James E.} and Lim, {Allen C.} and Ignatz, {Ryan I.} and Edwards, {Andrew G.} and Byrnes, {William C.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7717/peerj.1144",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2015",
journal = "PeerJ",
issn = "2167-8359",
publisher = "PeerJ",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Field-measured drag area is a key correlate of level cycling time trial performance

AU - Peterman, James E.

AU - Lim, Allen C.

AU - Ignatz, Ryan I.

AU - Edwards, Andrew G.

AU - Byrnes, William C.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Drag area (Ad) is a primary factor determining aerodynamic resistance during level cycling and is therefore a key determinant of level time trial performance. However, Ad has traditionally been difficult to measure. Our purpose was to determine the value of adding field-measured Ad as a correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In the field, 19 male cyclists performed a level (22.1 km) time trial. Separately, field-determined Ad and rolling resistance were calculated for subjects along with projected frontal area assessed directly (AP) and indirectly (Est AP). Also, a graded exercise test was performed to determine VO2 peak, lactate threshold (LT), and economy. VO2 peak (l min-1) and power at LT were significantly correlated to power measured during the time trial (r = 0.83 and 0.69, respectively) but were not significantly correlated to performance time (r = -0.42 and-0.45). The correlation with performance time improved significantly (p < 0.05) when these variables were normalized to Ad. Of note, Ad alone was better correlated to performance time (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) than any combination of non-normalized physiological measure. The best correlate with performance time was field-measured power output during the time trial normalized to Ad (r = -0.92). AP only accounted for 54% of the variability in Ad. Accordingly, the correlation to performance time was significantly lower using power normalized to AP (r = -0.75) or Est AP (r = -0.71). In conclusion, unless normalized to Ad, level time trial performance in the field was not highly correlated to common laboratory measures. Furthermore, our field-measured Ad is easy to determine and was the single best predictor of level time trial performance.

AB - Drag area (Ad) is a primary factor determining aerodynamic resistance during level cycling and is therefore a key determinant of level time trial performance. However, Ad has traditionally been difficult to measure. Our purpose was to determine the value of adding field-measured Ad as a correlate of level cycling time trial performance. In the field, 19 male cyclists performed a level (22.1 km) time trial. Separately, field-determined Ad and rolling resistance were calculated for subjects along with projected frontal area assessed directly (AP) and indirectly (Est AP). Also, a graded exercise test was performed to determine VO2 peak, lactate threshold (LT), and economy. VO2 peak (l min-1) and power at LT were significantly correlated to power measured during the time trial (r = 0.83 and 0.69, respectively) but were not significantly correlated to performance time (r = -0.42 and-0.45). The correlation with performance time improved significantly (p < 0.05) when these variables were normalized to Ad. Of note, Ad alone was better correlated to performance time (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) than any combination of non-normalized physiological measure. The best correlate with performance time was field-measured power output during the time trial normalized to Ad (r = -0.92). AP only accounted for 54% of the variability in Ad. Accordingly, the correlation to performance time was significantly lower using power normalized to AP (r = -0.75) or Est AP (r = -0.71). In conclusion, unless normalized to Ad, level time trial performance in the field was not highly correlated to common laboratory measures. Furthermore, our field-measured Ad is easy to determine and was the single best predictor of level time trial performance.

KW - Drag coefficient

KW - Exercise physiology

KW - Field testing

KW - Power meter

KW - Power output

KW - Predicting performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940377301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940377301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7717/peerj.1144

DO - 10.7717/peerj.1144

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84940377301

VL - 2015

JO - PeerJ

JF - PeerJ

SN - 2167-8359

IS - 8

M1 - e1144

ER -