Browsing by Author "Winterbach, Karin"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemMonitoring training load and training intensity distribution of amateur Cape Epic mountain bike cyclists(Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2017-12) Winterbach, Karin; Terblanche, Elmarie; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Education. Dept. of Sport Science.ENGLISH ABSTRACT : The aim of this cross-sectional descriptive study was to compare different training load (TL) methods and identify the distribution of the training load during the preparation phase and the Cape Epic MTB race. Secondary, the study aimed to determine how TL distribution influence the performance (race time). Nine amateur male MTB cyclists (mean ± SD: age 40.0 ± 8 y, height 179.4 ± 8.4 cm, body mass 79.1 ± 10.2 kg) and two women (age 41 and 58 y, height 158.6 and 166 cm, body mass 60 and 58.3 kg) volunteered to participate in a 13-week (December – March) preparation period before taking part in the 2017 Cape Epic MTBrace. Before the preparation phase, participants completed a maximal aerobic cycling test in the laboratory to determine three work intensity zones based on heart rate (HR) and corresponding to blood lactate thresholds. Internal training load was calculated using Banister’s training impulse (bTRIMP), individualized TRIMP (iTRIMP) and session Rate of Perceived exertion (sRPE). Riders were tracked and monitored throughout the training period using an online training diary (TrainingPeaks®, Boulder, United States). No training prescription was provided to the participants - they followed their own training plan, or a plan provided by their coach. Strong correlations were observed between the different TL measuring tools for the preparation phase (iTRIMP vs bTRIMP: r = 0.72, P = 0.02; iTRIMP vs sRPE: r = 0.86, P ˂ 0.01 and bTRIMP vs sRPE: r = 0.72, p ˂ 0.01). TL measures for the Cape Epic race yielded even stronger correlations (iTRIMP vs bTRIMP: r = 0.90, P ˂ 0.01, iTRIMP vs sRPE: r = 0.79, P ˂ 0.01 and bTRIMP vs sRPE: r = 0.94, P ˂ 0.01). Moderate correlations were found between the HRbased methods and total race time iTRIMP (r = -0.56, P = 0.85 and bTRIMP: r = -0.53, P = 0.09) and a weak correlation for sRPE and total race time (r = -0.41, P = 0.20). A statistically significant correlation was found between race time and iTRIMP scores during the race (r = -0.78, P ˂ 0.01), compared to a moderate correlation for bTRIMP during the race and total race time (r = -0.58, P = 0.08) and a weak correlation for sRPE during the race and race time (r = -0.36, P = 0.31). With the time-in-zone method, the TID for the preparation phase in Zone 1, 2 and 3 were 58%, 27% and 15%, and for the Cape Epic race it was 42%, 41% and 17% in zone 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In conclusion, the iTRIMP method is a useful indicator of internal training load in MTB cyclists, and correlates well with previously used internal measures such as sRPE and Banister’s TRIMP. In future, studies should investigate the use of power meters, in cycling especially, because of its instantaneous results and accuracy. Amateur MTB cyclists follows a pyramidal training pattern during the training phase that is in line with higher competitive level cyclists, and result in adequate preparation for the successful completion of the race.