Next Article in Journal
Assessing Recent Efforts to Improve Organization of Cancer Care in Poland: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?
Previous Article in Journal
The Chain Mediating Effect of Negative Perfectionism on Procrastination: An Ego Depletion Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resistance Training before, during, and after COVID-19 Infection: What Have We Learned So Far?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 15
10.3390/ijerph19159366
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does the Physiological Response of a Triathlete Change in the Use or Absence of Drafting?

by
David Mancha-Triguero
1,2,
Pablo Pérez-Murillo
2,
Sergio J. Ibáñez
2,* and
Antonio Antúnez
2
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Cardenal Spínola CEU Andalucía University, 41930 Sevilla, Spain
2
Group for Optimisation of Training and Sport Performance (GOERD), Faculty of Sport Science, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 9366; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159366
Submission received: 17 June 2022 / Revised: 11 July 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resistance Training in Physical Fitness and Sports Performance)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Currently, tactics play an important and decisive role in sprint distance triathlons. One of the most decisive tactical elements is drafting in the cycling sector, depending on whether or not it is allowed by the test regulations. The objective was to analyze the physiological responses in running, in relation to drafting in the cycling sector, according to level and sex. Methods: To do this, a total of n = 44 subjects were divided into two levels (elite: they got a podium in the national championship, 15.68 ± 0.82 years; amateurs: they compete at the regional level, 15.68 ± 1.62 and 37.9 ± 1.74 years), undergoing two training sessions of four cycling-running multitransitions with variability in the permissibility of drafting were analyzed. A descriptive analysis of the variables was carried out, together with an inferential analysis to know the relationships and associations between the dependent and independent variables. Results: The results showed significant differences in the parameters, as related to running technique, heart rate, speed, and displacement (both between levels and sex). Conclusions: This study concludes that drafting in the cycling sector generates decisive physiological responses for the running sector.

1. Introduction

Triathlon is an Olympic sport that involves the performance of three sports disciplines (swimming, cycling, and running), which are carried out in order and without interruption, thus offering a wide variety of disciplines and distances [1]. According to current literature, the sprint distance is the one that enjoys the greatest popularity among popular triathletes, or age groups, because it requires less physical demand and can be within the reach of the majority of the population, without needing volumes of high training, such as the middle- and long-distance, which are difficult to combine with work and social life for amateur athletes [2].
As a sport, a triathlon encompasses different modalities collected under the regulations of the Spanish Triathlon Federation, also known as FETRI [3], such as duathlon, cross duathlon, winter triathlon, or quadriathlon, among others. All these official competitions are organized according to the category of the participant. The regulation has an absolute male category and another absolute female category. In turn, these categories (according to sex) are divided according to the age of the participants [2].
All these modalities that are grouped within the triathlon, have a set of common norms or rules, such as the use of drafting or the distance of the test, which is related to the age of the participants. Younger participants will only be able to participate in short-distance events, while adults can participate in both short- and long-distance [3]. To do this, depending on the test to be performed, the preparation of the athlete will be modified. In this line, training planning is of great importance, since it must be oriented and based on the training principles: (i) supercompensation; (ii) overload; (iii) specificity; (iv) individualization; (v) variation; (vi) recovery; (vii) progression; and (viii) reversibility [4]. In addition, one of the main objectives of planning is related to the quantification of the load. The quantification of the load is the method used to know the volume and intensity to which athletes are subjected, thus being vital to achieve the objectives and physiological adaptations proposed in any sports planning [5].
Good load control and correct interpretation provide the coach with a set of reliable information regarding how the training process is affecting the athlete [6,7] and if the load planned for the athlete based on their needs and characteristics is causing the necessary or planned adaptation [8]. Traditionally, individual sports have focused part of their efforts on the control and quantification of the loads that these athletes support during training or competitions, with the aim of improving and planning training [9]. This trend has spread to other sports, currently being a booming issue in recent years [10]. However, in a large part of individual sports, this process has hardly changed, and technology can help both in the evaluation and quantification of daily work to optimize performance [11]. In this line, training groups are often seen, in which athletes with different objectives, moments of the season, age, or even competitive level are mixed; training in situations far from those that can be found in competition. In addition, in most competitions there is little knowledge of the competition that does not allow either coaches or athletes to predict the final result [12]. To do this, the tactic or approach of the competition is used. In this part, it is necessary to attend mainly to the regulations and, from there, look for a situation that most favors the athlete. In recent years, one of the trends in triathlons has been the use or prohibition of drafting, defining this fact as the situation of an athlete who during the competition is close to another cyclist who is ahead and takes advantage of his situation to reduce his physical–physiological demands to gain an aerodynamic advantage [13] (benefit from a possible decrease in resistance), and this variant may alter the final result of the competition. For this, the reproducibility of this situation in the training sessions in the organization of the competition is very important. This variant can alter the final result in the competition, and the reproducibility of this situation is very important in training, in order to organize the competition.
We reviewed the literature, and there are documents that analyze the different modalities of triathlon (in a generic way) or some specific sector [6,7,8,9,10]. However, there are no documents that analyze the influence of the cycling sector on the running sector and how drafting affects the triathlete’s fatigue and technique. For all these reasons, the objectives of this research were: (i) to characterize the physical demands that triathletes endure in multi-transition training; (ii) analyze the differences in the demands they support according to the competitive level, sex, and type of circuit (with drafting/without drafting), according to the origin of the selected variables (internal load and external load variables).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

Following the classification model established by this research, we can frame it under a manipulative strategy, within studies of an empirical nature of a quasi-experimental nature, where we seek to examine the differences between groups of athletes, being a non-equivalent group design [14].

2.2. Sample

The sample of participants selected for this research corresponds to the non-random type, characterized by the influence of the researcher who selects the sample, and the choice made may be due to different factors. Within this group, it belongs to the intentional or opinion types, where the sample is chosen based on the study to be carried out and where representative samples are sought. A total of 44 triathletes (n = 44) included between the young category and the senior age group, both male and female, were analyzed (Table 1).
All the selected triathletes train and compete regularly. On the one hand, there is the performance group made up of high-performance triathletes (they are the best triathletes in their categories—in young triathletes, they obtained a podium in the national championship; in adults, triathletes placed 15th or better in the national championship). On the other hand, the amateur/amateur group corresponds to triathletes from different clubs that compete in the regional triathlon league.

2.3. Materials and Instruments

Anthropometric characteristics were recorded using a portable rod stadiometer (SECA, Hamburg, Germany) and bioimpedance balance to record body composition using 8 model MC-780MA electrodes (TANITA, Tokyo, Japan). To record the variables related to the load borne by the athletes, each athlete was equipped with a WIMU PROTM inertial device (RealTrack Systems, Almería, Spain), which was attached to the athlete’s body by means of an anatomically adjustable harness for practice, as well as a fitness tracker and GARMIN heart rate strap (Garmin, Olathe, KS, USA). The inertial device was used in the analysis and recording of the kinematic variables of distance and time, of accelerometry and neuromuscular. The heart rate band was for variables related to objective internal load (heart rate). To know the beginning and end of each athlete’s test, an ANT+ transmitter was used that incorporated a button to mark the start and end points on the timeline of the devices [15].

2.4. Variables

The load variables are those that allow the coach to have a quantification of the demands that training causes in the athlete. Within the variables, one can differentiate between independent and dependent variables. In this research, the independent variables were sex (men and women), competitive level (amateur/amateur and elite), and circuit type (with and without drafting). The rest of the variables, defined below, are dependent:
  • Variables related to the cycling sector:
    (i)
    Average speed cycle sector (avg speed cycle): the average speed at which the athlete moves during his cycling phase, measured in km/h.
  • Variables related to the running sector:
    (ii)
    Time: time used by the athlete to cover the estimated distance of the running phase (400 m), measured in seconds [11,16,17].
    (iii)
    Explosive distance (Dist. Expl.): number of meters traveled by the athlete at a speed greater than 18 km/h over a distance of 400 m, measured in meters.
    (iv)
    Distance traveled at different intensities: number of meters that the athlete travels at different speeds. The ranges are 0–15 km/h; 15, 1–20 km/h; 20, 1–25 km/h; more than 25 km/h, measured in meters.
    (v)
    Maximum heart rate (HRMax): maximum number of beats made by the heart in one minute, measured in beats per minute (bpm).
    (vi)
    Average heart rate (HRAvg): average number of beats made by the heart in one minute, measured in beats per minute (bpm).
    (vii)
    % Maximum heart rate (% HRMax): percentage at which the heart works, taking the maximum heart rate into account. It is a variable of intensity.
    (viii)
    Average speed (Speed avg): average speed at which the athlete has moved in a period during the running phase.
    (ix)
    PlayerLoad (PL): a vectorial magnitude derived from triaxial accelerometry data that quantifies motion at high resolution. Accelerations and decelerations are used to construct a cumulative measure of the rate of change in acceleration. Cumulative measure (PL) and intensity measure (PL·min−1) were used, thus being able to indicate the rate of stress to which the player submits his body during a given period of time. As a unit of load, it has a moderate-high degree of reliability and validity [17,18].
    (x)
    Number of steps (nStep): count of steps/strides made during the running phase. A smaller number of steps informs that the stride is wide. Measured in number of times.
    (xi)
    Step time (tStep): total time the athlete spends to perform a full step cycle. This pitch cycle is made up of the ground contact time and the flight phase time spent moving, measured in milliseconds.
    (xii)
    Contact time (tContact): the time that the athlete is in contact with the ground during the step and in which he tries, in the shortest possible time, to print the greatest possible force in the movement, measured in milliseconds.
    (xiii)
    Step flight time (tFly): the time that the athlete is in the flight phase after the contact time. Depending on the contact time variable, the flight phase can be longer or shorter, measured in milliseconds.
  • Variables related to neuromuscular fatigue of the test:
    (xiv)
    CMJ Jump height (CMJ): maximum height reached during the CMJ jump, measured in centimeters [19].
The variables HRMax, HRAvg, % HRMax PL, and CMJ were used in other similar studies for the quantification of internal and external load [20,21].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed for the analyzed variables (mean and typical deviation). Next, the criteria assumption tests were carried out through the normality assumption (Shapiro–Wilk), homoscedasticity assumption (Levene test), and randomization assumption (Runs test), finding a distribution of the data as parametric [22]. In addition, an inferential analysis was performed to determine the differences based on the independent variable. For this, the selected test was t test for independent samples [23]. The value of significance used in the investigation was p < .05, according to the specification of Field [22]. The software used was the statistical package for the social science (SPSS Statistics, version 24, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

2.6. Procedure

Firstly, the territorial triathlon federation, where the investigation was going to be carried out, was contacted. Once the proposal was accepted, the technicians involved were informed of the research design (some of their triathletes could be part of the final sample). In addition, for minor triathletes, the parents were informed, who, through an informed consent, authorized the participation of their children in the research. Next, a contact was made with the athletes, so that they could experience the investigation procedure and materials that they were going to wear.
The study consisted of performing two multi-transition training sessions with a separation of 2 weeks (the same training strategies, nutrition, recovery, and accumulated weekly training load were maintained, an attempt was made to reproduce them in both evaluations). Each multi-transition training will be divided into four cycling and running transitions, with a total recovery of 10 min between each transition, in order to analyze the parameters with the least possible wear. Each cycling circuit will have a distance of 2000 m, and each running circuit will have a distance of 400 m. Both circuits will take place on asphalt, with the aim of reproducing competition conditions. In test 1, drafting was prohibited. Each triathlete started individually, with a margin of 1 min between the next subject to start the transition.
In test 2, drafting was allowed. The outputs were achieved in groups of 10, in order to reproduce competition situations. The circuits used in both evaluations were the same, so that the circuit was not a polluting variable. In each training, the triathletes used the same sports material and nutrition and hydration system. In addition, the day chosen for the test was the same day of the week, and the load accumulated during the week in both situations was similar.

3. Results

The results of the investigation, according to the independent variables, are presented below.

3.1. Differences between Sex without Drafting

Table 2 below shows the descriptive results and significant differences between sex in the circuit without drafting, as differentiated in each of the four transitions of the elite athletes. In transition 1, significant differences are shown in the distance traveled at different speeds, as well as the flight time related to the running technique. In transition 2, significant differences are shown in the distance covered at different speeds and jump height CMJ, related to fatigue. In transitions 3 and 4, significant differences are shown in the distance traveled at different speeds. Both in transitions 2, 3, and 4, no significant differences were observed in the variables related to running technique for elite level athletes.
It also analyzes the differences between sex in the circuit without drafting at the amateur level divided into the four transitions. In transition 1, significant differences were found in the distance traveled at different speeds, explosive distance, heart rate variables, and PlayerLoad. In transition 2, significant differences were found in the distance traveled at different speeds, heart rate variables, and average running speed. In transition 3, significant differences were found in the variables of heart rate, PlayerLoad, and average speed of the running phase. In transition 4 significant differences were found in the distance traveled at different speeds. In addition, in the 4 transitions carried out, significant differences between sex were observed in the amateur athletes in the variables related to running technique.

3.2. Differences between Sex with Drafting

Table 3, below, shows the descriptive results and the significant differences between sex in the circuit with drafting, as differentiated in each of the four transitions of the elite athletes. In transition 1, significant differences are shown in the explosive distance, heart rate variables, and PlayerLoad. In transition 2, significant differences are shown in the distance traveled at different speeds, average speed of the running phase, and PlayerLoad. In transitions 3 and 4, significant differences are shown in the distance traveled at different speeds, heart rate variables, average speed of the running phase, and PlayerLoad. In addition, in transitions 1, 2, and 4, significant differences were observed in the variables related to running technique for elite-level athletes.
The differences between sexes in the circuit with drafting at the amateur level divided in the four transitions were also analyzed. In transition 1, significant differences were found in the distance traveled at different speeds. In transitions 2 and 3, no significant differences were found in the variables analyzed. In transition 4, significant differences were found in the number of steps made. Finally, in this modality with drafting, differences were observed at the elite level in most transitions when fatigue was evaluated (through the CMJ jump).

3.3. Differences with Drafting/without Drafting between Competitive Levels

Table 4 shows the results grouped according to the competitive level and use, or absence, of drafting during the four transitions. The results belonging to elite level athletes show that there are significant differences in the parameters of distance traveled at different speeds in transitions 1, 2 and 4. In addition, significant differences are shown in the variables related to the running technique (stride) in variables 2, 3, and 4. On the contrary, in the amateur-level subjects, significant differences are shown in the parameters of distance traveled at different speeds in transition 1. Finally, significant differences are also shown in the variables related to the running technique (stride) in variables 2, 3, and 4.

4. Discussion

The analysis and quantification of the load in training or competition in individual sports has been a common practice for many years. However, it is currently still evaluated or quantified with the same procedure, and very few incorporate new technology or parameters. In addition, on many occasions, the athlete is evaluated without paying attention to the test or format for which it is intended to prepare. That is why the characteristics of the test must have an impact on the preparatory process.

4.1. Differences between Sex in the Circuit with Drafting

The significant differences of the analyzed variables, according to sex in the circuit with drafting in elite-level athletes, showed the main finding of the research that the running technique and physiological variables vary heterogeneously, according to sex, with fatigue. These differences especially appear in the variables jump CMJ (assessment of fatigue) and the flight phase of the stride. In this line, Reilly [24] analyzed the difference in running technique between women and men in athletes. This study concluded by stating that the anatomical differences between a woman and man affect the development of the running technique. One of the most prominent causes is due to the fact that women have a wider pelvis than men, which affects the “Q angle” between the pelvis and femur [25,26]. This study also suggested that women’s pelvises are more tilted than men’s, inducing a forward curvature when running. The fact of not finding significant differences in the rest of the parameters is attributed to the sports level of the athletes analyzed, since, at these levels, women train at high volumes and intensities that allow them to perform in competitions at a high aerobic and anaerobic levels [27].
However, if the significant differences in the test performed by amateur-level athletes are analyzed, the main findings are the difference in the running technique in the flight phase (measured through ‘tFly’) that affects the difficulty to reach and maintain high running paces. Differences in running technique can be attributed to the anatomical differences in women, compared to men, as discussed above [25,26]. To analyze the differences in reaching high rhythms, the existing literature shows different studies related to specific training for women [28]. Along these lines, García [29] analyzed the physiological differences between men and women that must be taken into account when planning training sessions. According to this study, women should train for anaerobic thresholds at higher intensities than men, since their fat metabolism is higher and maintained at higher intensities than men. In addition, he suggested that, if men normally enter anaerobic consumption at 80–85% of their maximum heart rate, women should do so at 85–90% of their maximum heart rate, in the same way they are training in mixed aerobics instead of anaerobic. For all these reasons, different causes have traditionally been shown that made it difficult for women to reach high running rhythms, with the planning being carried out with a generic design and without taking their physiological or hormonal considerations into account, compared to those of men [30]. The fact that no significant differences were found in the rest of the parameters is related to the fact that, although the level is amateur, they are triathletes who compete regularly, and their energy systems are developed and stimulated to perform intense training [27,31,32].

4.2. Differences between Male/Female Sex in Circuit without Drafting

In the test carried out on the circuit without drafting, the elite athletes analyzed responded differently to the same stimulus, depending on their sex. Although there are differences related to running technique and anaerobic threshold, the main finding is the appearance of significant differences, as related to the other parameters of running technique and displacement (meters traveled at different speeds or step contact time), as well as the high % of maximum heart rate achieved. Coinciding with the findings mentioned above, the anatomical differences in women cause a change in the running technique, with respect to men, as well as the fact that our affected technical parameters appear can be associated with the fact that the wear associated with a circuit without drafting is higher than in a circuit with drafting. In this line, Melendo [33] stated that the energy wear of going to the wheel (drafting) is equivalent to a savings of 30%, due to factors related to aerodynamics. Concurring with the statement, Anderson [34] suggested that, in addition to aerodynamics, muscle mass also interferes with energy wasting because the greater the muscle mass, the greater the displacement and rolling force. According to body composition, women in this study have a higher percentage of muscle mass than men. This fact would justify a greater energy expenditure by women in this type of circuit that could harm the technical execution of the subsequent foot race [35,36,37]. In addition, the appearance of significant differences in the variables related to heart rate is also related to fatigue, body composition, and the wear and tear produced by the absence of writing [38]. This can generate poorly planned training (generic, without differentiating by sex or according to physiological factors), as well as training without being structured according to the woman’s anaerobic threshold, which can cause greater physical exhaustion, thus justifying the findings obtained in this manuscript.

4.3. Differences in the Use/Absence of Drafting between Competitive Levels

Finally, the differences between elite and amateur athletes in the use or absence of drafting in physical demands have been analyzed. The main finding is the appearance of significant differences at both levels in parameters, as related to cardiac output, running technique (stride), and movement speed. To do this, Gutiérrez [39] analyzed the aerodynamic losses in cycling, based on the number of cyclists that make up a group and concluded that the fact of going in a group of five cyclists or more “on the wheel” implies an energy waste between a 20–30% less than in a circuit without drafting, where the mechanical and aerodynamic losses are greater. This fact justifies the differences in cardiac wear between one circuit and another. In addition, in relation to the variables, Calas [40] analyzed the biomechanical characteristics of different triathletes. This study concluded that there was previous wear in the swimming and cycling segments conditions running technique. This fatigue tends to make triathletes execute a pendulum running technique, instead of a circular one [41]. Caro [42] stated that the fatigue generated by swimming and cycling makes the arms swing less. In turn, the fatigue in the hamstring muscles generated in the cycling segment makes the support time longer and flight phase more less accentuated [32,43]. In line with the findings found, Coles et al. [44] determined that, in cycling situations where drafting is not allowed, oxygen consumption increases between 18–33% and lactate accumulation appears earlier than it does on circuits without drafting. This fact justifies the differences found in the high heart rate intervals that require a greater energy expenditure. Another study, Castellar [45] suggests a greater specialization of training, giving greater importance to race tactics, as well as an individualization of the race technique, depending on the competition circuit, and greater differentiation in training between men and women. The variation in the explosive distance in running is due to the muscular and physiological fatigue generated in the cycling sector [46]. According to Mon [47], the muscular fatigue generated by swimming and the cycling sector generates a loss of explosive force of 15% in international triathletes. These data are associated with the previous study [44], where energy and physiological expenditure without drafting is increased, which could justify this difference in explosive distance between the circuit with and without drafting.
This study provides a new point of view on the importance of good race tactics, in order to perform at the highest level in a triathlon. The fact that the cycling segment does not allow drafting has clear and direct consequences for the subsequent running race, regardless of the level of the triathlete. Increasingly, the ITU (International Triathlon Union) is betting on short and explosive test formats, where every second will be key to achieving good results. Having relevant data regarding how to improve and enhance running biomechanics and reduce cardiac output can be key in this type of test format. In turn, COVID-19 has generated some changes in the regulations, where many competitions were held with the individual time trial format where drafting was not allowed. This study highlights the increasingly pronounced importance of working on racing technique, according to the needs of the circuit and in an individualized way, starting from the lower categories. In addition, it provides useful information on the need for training and practical application of specific training differentiated for women and men. Training at the same intensities and structures as men has been shown to impair cardiac performance in demanding training and future competitions. This study suggests the need for greater training and specialization of coaches in the specific training of female athletes.
Inertial device technology has been used in a novel way, since there are hardly any cyclical sports studies that have used it, and it has served to provide clear information on biomechanical aspects of running on a field test and in a situation close to competition. This information facilitates the planning or detection of any anomaly, due to the fact that it has traditionally had a high cost, and not all athletes can access it. Finally, the application of this technology is suggested to carry out assessments and monitoring of cyclical sports, in order to optimize their performance in training and competitions. It also suggests working on the running technique in men differently than in women, taking the anatomical differences that they present into account. In addition, a limitation of the research is the number of the sample (n = 44), which is limited and has specific characteristics. It would be interesting to, in future research, expand the number of athletes analyzed (expanding in amateur and elite, both male and female).

5. Conclusions

The main conclusions confirm that the physiological demands supported are influenced by the sex, type of circuit, and level of the athlete. It is also concluded that drafting influences cardiac output in elite and amateur running. For this reason, it is concluded that the circuit without drafting generates a loss of explosive force in the running race, as reflected in the explosive distance and height of the jump. Additionally, drafting has a greater influence on women than men, based on steps/stride-related parameters (flight time, step time, and contact time). Drafting influences cardiac output in elite and amateur runners.
For all these reasons, taking the results obtained in the research into account, it is recommended that coaches and sports professionals, during the planning and development of training sessions, seek to prepare the athlete (regardless of sex or sports level) for the sport, physical activity, or effort that will be made during the competition—often, training groups are observed doing joint training (with the help of drafting), when, during the competition, that “extra help” is prohibited.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M.-T. and P.P.-M.; methodology, D.M.-T., S.J.I. and A.A.; software, P.P.-M.; validation, D.M.-T., P.P.-M., S.J.I. and A.A.; formal analysis, D.M.-T., S.J.I. and A.A.; investigation, P.P.-M.; resources, D.M.-T., S.J.I. and A.A.; data curation, D.M.-T., P.P.-M., S.J.I. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.M.-T. and P.P.-M.; writing—review and editing, S.J.I. and A.A.; visualization, D.M.-T., P.P.-M., S.J.I. and A.A.; supervision, S.J.I. and A.A.; project administration, S.J.I. and A.A.; funding acquisition, D.M.-T., S.J.I. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been partially subsidized by the Aid for Research Groups (GR21149) from the Regional Government of Extremadura (Department of Economy, Science and Digital Agenda), with a contribution from the European Union from the European Funds for Regional Development.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Extremadura for studies involving humans (233/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

MDPI Research Data Policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lehenaff, D.; Bertrand, D. The triathlon; Inde: París, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kowal-Connelly, S. Sprint distance Triathlon: A lifetime sport for all ages. Am. Acad Pediatr. 2017, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  3. García, D.; Herrero, J. The triathlon: An approach to its origins and the factors that determine its performance. Rev. Dig-Bue Air 2003, 66, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernal, F.; Peralta, A.; Gavotto, H.; Placencia, L. Principles of sports training to improve physical abilities. Biotecnia 2014, 16, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bompa, T.O.; Buzzichelli, C.A. Periodization of Sports Training; Editorial Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cejuela, R.; Esteve-Lanao, J. Training load quantification in triathlon. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2011, 6, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Etxebarria, N.; Mujika, I.; Pyne, D.B. Training and competition readiness in triathlon. Sports 2019, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Cejuela, R.; Pérez, J.A.; Villa, J.G.; Cortell, J.; Rodríguez, J.A. Analysis of performance factors in sprint Distance triathlon. J. Hum. Sport Excerc. 2008, 2, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cejuela, R.; Esteve-Lanao, J. Quantifying the Training Load in Triathlon. In Triathlon Medicine; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 291–316. [Google Scholar]
  10. Aoyagi, A.; Ishikura, K.; Nabekura, Y. Exercise Intensity during Olympic-Distance Triathlon in Well-Trained Age-Group Athletes: An Observational Study. Sports 2021, 9, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Reina, M.; García-Rubio, J.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. The acceleration and deceleration profiles of U-18 women’s basketball players during competitive matches. Sports 2019, 7, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Cejuela, R.; Sellés-Pérez, S. Road to Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games: Training Characteristics of a World Class Male Triathlete. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 835705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Olaya-Cuartero, J.; Fernández-Sáez, J.; Østerlie, O.; Ferriz-Valero, A. Concordance Analysis between the Segments and the Overall Performance in Olympic Triathlon in Elite Triathletes. Biology 2022, 11, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. (2013). A classification System for Research designs in psychology. Anal. Psicol. 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bastida-Castillo, A.; Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; la Cruz-Sánchez, D.; Reche-Royo, X.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Pino-Ortega, J. Accuracy and inter-unit reliability of Ultra- Wide-Band tracking system in indoor exercise. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mancha-Triguero, D.; García-Rubio, J.; Antúnez, A.; Ibáñez, S.J. Physical and physiological profiles of aerobic and anaerobic capacities in young basketball players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Barreira, P.; Robinson, M.A.; Drust, B.; Nedergaard, N.; Raja Azidin, R.M.F.; Vanrenterghem, J. Mechanical Player Load™ using trunk-mounted accelerometry in football: Is it a reliable, task-and player-specific observation? J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 1674–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Schelling, X.; Torres-Ronda, L. An integrative approach to strength and neuromuscular power training for basketball. Strength Cond. J. 2016, 38, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bosco, C. Strength Assessment with the Bosco Test; Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 1994; pp. 35–138. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. Design and validity of a field test battery for assessing multi-location external load profile in invasion team sports. E-Balonmano Com 2020, 16, 23–48. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mancha-Triguero, D.; García-Rubio, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. SBAFIT: A field-based test battery to assess physical fitness in basketball players. E-Balonmano Com 2019, 15, 107–126. [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Donoghue, P. Statistics for Sport and Exercise Studies: An Introduction; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Reilly, T. The running woman. Publice Stand. 2004, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  25. Delahunt, E.; Chawke, M.; Kelleher, J.; Murphy, K.; Prendiville, A.; Sweeny, L.; Patterson, M. Lower limb kinematics and dynamic postural stability in anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed female athletes. J. Athl. Train. 2013, 48, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Alemdaroğlu, U. The relationship between muscle strength, Anaerobic performance, agility, sprint ability and vertical jump performance in professional basketball players. J. Hum. Kinet. 2012, 31, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Rønnestad, B.R.; Hansen, J.; Vegge, G.; Tønnessen, E.; Slettaløkken, G. Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared with long intervals in cyclists–An effort-matched approach. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2015, 25, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rosales-Soto, G.; Corsini-Pino, R.; Monsálves-Álvarez, M.; Yáñez-Sepúlveda, R. Response of the sympathetic-parasympathetic balance of the Heart Rate Variability during a week of aerobic training in road cyclists. Rev. Andal. De Med. Del Deporte 2016, 9, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. García, A. Menopause and Physical Exercise. Technical Communications (RFEN). 2018, pp. 4–7. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6363821 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  30. Bravo, E.; Águila, N.; Benítez, C.; Rodríguez, D.; Delgado, A.; Centeno, A. Biological and Social Factors that Influence Women’s Health During Climacteric and Menopause. MediSur 2019, 17, 719–727. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ogueta-Alday, A.; López, J.G. Factors affecting long-distance running performance. Rev. Int. Cienc. Deporte 2016, 12, 278–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cuba-Dorado, A.; Álvarez-Yates, T.; García-García, O. Elite Triathlete Profiles in Draft-Legal Triathlons as a Basis for Talent Identification. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Melendo, P. Bibliographic Analysis of the Biomechanical Differences between Athletics and Cycling between Triathletes of Each of the Disciplines. Bachelor´s Thesis, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Anderson, O. Cycling and performance. How the draft will freeze your opponents? Alto Rend. Cienc. Deport. Entren. Fit. 2004, 19, 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bruening, D.A.; Baird, A.R.; Weaver, K.J.; Rasmussen, A.T. Whole body kinematic sex differences persist across non-dimensional gait speeds. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nguyen, A.D.; Shultz, S.J. Sex differences in clinical measures of lower extremity alignment. J. Orthop. Sports Phy. Ther. 2007, 37, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Humberto, H.; Botero, D.A.; Melo, C.E.; Porras, J. Anthropometric comparison of a Group of road and track cyclists. Cuerpo Cult. Mov. 2014, 4, 111–125. [Google Scholar]
  38. García, A. Structure of Training Microcycles as a Function of the Menstrual Cycle. Technical Communications (RFEN). 2017, pp. 4–8. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6360456 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  39. Gutiérrez, M. Biomechanics and cycling. Eur. J. Hum. Mov. 1995, 1, 77–94. [Google Scholar]
  40. Calas, A. Biomechanical Analysis of the Running Segment of the Triathlon Competition. Ph.D. Thesis, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hausswirth, C.; Lehénaff, D.; Dréano, P.; Savonen, K. Effects of cycling alone or in a sheltered position on subsequent running performance during a triathlon. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1999, 31, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Caro, C.M. Analysis of running technique in triathletes. Sport Train Mag. 2011, 37, 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  43. Callén, J.R.; Blanco, A.; Ensenyat, A. Quantification of the swimming training of a triathlete through the subjective index of fatigue. Lect. Educ. Física Y Deportes 2006, 95, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cole, S.D.; Claney, K.; Conte, J.C.; Anderson, R.; Hagberg, J.M. Energy expenditure during bicycling. J. Appl. Physiol. 1990, 68, 748–753. [Google Scholar]
  45. Castellar, C. The Second Transition in the Triathlon: Effects of Cycling on the Run in Triathletes of Different Levels. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hausswirth, C.; Brisswalter, J. Strategies for improving performance during long duration Olympic events: The example of Olympic distance Triathlon. Sports Med. 2018, 38, 881–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mon, J. Alteration of the manifestation of the explosive-elastic force as a function of the previous swimming intensity in triathletes of international level. Rev. Mex. Inv. Cult Fís Depor. 2011, 1, 211–230. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Physical and biological characteristics of the selected triathletes.
Table 1. Physical and biological characteristics of the selected triathletes.
GroupYearsSampleTriathletesCharacteristics
Young elite15.68 ± 0.82n = 14n = 8 males; n = 6 femalesMales:
Height: 167 cm; Weight: 53 kg; Fat: 7.6%.
Females:
Height: 162 cm; Weight: 47 kg; Fat: 8.1%.
Young amateur15.68 ± 1.62n = 14n = 7 males; n = 7 femalesMales:
Height: 154 cm; Weight: 43 kg; Fat: 8.2%.
Females:
Height: 150 cm; Weight: 40 kg; Fat: 8%.
Amateur37.9 ± 1.74n = 16n = 8 males; n = 8 femalesMales:
Height: 175 cm; Weight: 73 kg; Fat: 13.3%.
Females:
Height: 171 cm; Weight: 63 kg; Fat: 15.2%.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive and inferential results of the variables analyzed based on the circuit transition without drafting.
Table 2. Descriptive and inferential results of the variables analyzed based on the circuit transition without drafting.
EliteAmateur
MenWomen MenWomen
MeanSDMeanSDSig.*MeanSDMeanSDSig.*
Transition 1CyclingAvg Speed Cycle36.671.3132.107.55.167 34.305.1230.232.220.325
RunningTime85.1716.6196.3313.32.349 90.0015.73111.339.71.010*
Expl. Dist.14.336.167.402.25.109 7.825.906.802.07.330
Distance 0–15 km/h48.4772.55159.70130.75.034*106.58119.07323.8371.86.331
Distance 15.1–20 km/h211.7293.21232.30100.01.231 235.38200.0285.6074.69.015*
Distance 20.1–25 km/h143.72166.3710.8318.76.003*61.4499.060.000.00.564
Distance > 25.1 km/h1.333.270.000.00.516 0.581.300.000.00.439
HRMax187.508.17182.6714.47.531 183.4015.50188.0023.26.013*
HRAvg182.507.87179.3314.22.671 178.8013.79185.0023.26.024*
% HRMax91.253.9389.677.11.671 89.406.9092.5011.63.028*
Speed avg18.072.1815.252.10.107 16.412.4913.390.97.196
PlayerLoad5.320.555.800.59.271 5.940.606.691.14.008*
nStep239.8333.91276.6730.66.159 275.2033.80324.6721.08.008*
tStep332.4113.96336.5419.64.722 316.7426.07292.6959.29.883
tContact224.0530.83254.6114.21.155 238.7741.95213.7088.21.883
tFly108.3629.5481.9333.17.032*77.9722.9949.6923.75.883
FatigueCMJ35.044.1331.011.91.161 28.662.3624.640.89.799
Transition 2CyclingAvg speed cycle35.921.4834.341.97.215 34.224.8931.232.24.959
RunningTime91.1719.7097.6719.66.655 98.4019.81106.671.53.333
Expl. Dist.12.354.777.402.51.143 7.861.604.101.87.084
Distance 0–15 km/h49.7871.85129.03129.38.023*138.38150.58285.6782.20.957
Distance 15.1–20 km/h210.6273.07256.0356.06.025*229.1642.22119.705.10.224
Distance 20.1–25 km/h145.827.6531.6010.44.031*52.185.410.000.00.001*
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.00
HRMax189.178.82184.3311.55.503 183.8013.03190.6721.50.009*
HRAvg184.337.99181.3312.42.566 179.6011.41187.3322.01.010*
% HRMax92.174.0090.676.21.668 89.805.7193.6711.00.069
Speed avg17.872.0015.602.24.166 15.612.5713.620.57.016*
PlayerLoad5.400.576.070.95.221 6.000.716.691.06.013*
nStep240.8332.23283.3357.74.188 291.6043.07320.334.04.016*
tStep322.9511.06328.416.62.465 336.8511.89325.4426.08.031*
tContact227.0346.79243.5537.42.614 243.7026.47234.5721.12.031*
tFly95.9236.8184.8642.57.679 93.1525.4990.8634.17.959
FatigueCMJ33.155.4622.455.63.029*27.443.4522.663.53.001*
Transition 3CyclingAvg speed cycle35.321.7934.352.12.491 34.145.3029.702.82.325
RunningTime87.3316.97100.3315.82.360 95.0015.70101.674.04.785
Expl. Dist.13.986.908.971.01.265 8.203.532.572.66.079
Distance 0–15 km/h53.5777.08177.20123.35.001*146.38170.12298.3768.69.080
Distance 15.1–20 km/h200.7062.46226.4332.96.171 230.1447.1069.4347.05.168
Distance 20.1–25 km/h115.108.347.771.44.013*30.102.370.000.00.247
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.671.250.000.00.400 0.000.000.000.00.006*
HRMax188.508.04181.009.64.254 183.6013.79189.0019.52.010*
HRAvg184.177.68178.338.96.340 179.4012.86185.6720.01.013*
% HRMax92.083.8489.174.48.340 89.706.4392.8310.00.018*
Speed avg17.461.8914.911.74.092 15.702.4413.020.69.009*
PlayerLoad5.420.566.121.12.235 5.800.516.121.12.009*
nStep238.0030.25289.0042.32.072 287.8036.21290.6737.82.009*
tStep327.6510.44330.215.47.708 338.3911.57322.2028.00.583
tContact241.7439.45245.2840.56.903 238.8627.40232.2623.80.325
tFly85.9032.3784.9343.99.971 99.5326.1689.9432.26.333
FatigueCMJ32.186.2328.462.67.367 29.622.7723.036.84.583
Transition 4CyclingAvg speed cycle35.072.5734.502.08.753 33.704.0429.273.37.060
RunningTime79.837.8396.0017.52.086 92.6016.52109.001.73.333
Expl. Dist.13.585.4013.773.48.960 8.581.887.634.33.121
Distance 0–15 km/h40.5350.76125.1389.03.004*121.12166.16258.80103.67.734
Distance 15.1–20 km/h190.2571.10252.6348.38.334 208.2437.02163.800.63.451
Distance 20.1–25 km/h169.1215.1439.732.70.015*79.980.580.000.00.004*
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.871.480.000.00.361 0.000.000.000.00.004*
HRMax182.0014.48182.008.541000 186.2014.52190.6719.01.042*
HRAvg175.3317.03177.339.02.857 181.0012.67186.3319.50.043*
% HRMax87.678.5188.674.51.516 90.506.3393.179.75.180
Speed avg18.211.7915.862.07.119 16.252.5214.050.53.179
PlayerLoad5.420.486.170.95.143 5.840.517.041.14.141
nStep233.3318.67279.6746.31.061 282.0039.96327.676.81.180
tStep311.1026.91327.957.86.337 333.0013.94316.9935.08.009*
tContact223.8846.38241.1237.03.596 234.5430.28229.6522.27.009*
tFly87.2223.5086.8242.98.986 98.4633.3987.3437.35.049*
FatigueCMJ31.945.6129.070.22.420 27.694.0022.654.04.230
* p < .05; Expl. Dist: explosive distance; HRMax: maximum heart rate; HRAvg: average heart rate; % HRMax: percentage of maximum heart rate; Speed Avg: average of velocity running phase; nStep: number of steps; tStep: time of step; tContact: time of contact; tFly: time of flight.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive and inferential results of the variables analyzed based on the transition in circuit with drafting.
Table 3. Descriptive and inferential results of the variables analyzed based on the transition in circuit with drafting.
EliteAmateur
MenWomen MenWomen
MeanSDMeanSDSig.*MeanSDMeanSDSig.*
Transition 1CyclingAvg speed cycle33.944.0434.100.42.170 30.823.6128.932.22.294
RunningTime73.405.27103.5019.09.005*102.6012.76106.005.00.930
Expl. Dist.14.246.712.300.00.712 7.884.907.033.12.002*
Distance 0–15 km/h11.322.70229.80264.60.655 157.52135.02251.4054.10.002*
Distance 15.1–20 km/h135.5864.17183.908.77.041*268.0616.40167.0713.12.027*
Distance 20.1–25 km/h250.12200.340.000.00.036*2.022.520.770.86.624
Distance > 25.1 km/h21.0634.490.000.00.136 0.000.000.000.00.632
HRMax189.609.71185.5010.61.001*184.2014.25190.3320.55.432
HRAvg184.6010.64181.009.90.019*180.4014.15185.3323.35.732
% HRMax92.305.3290.504.95.002*90.207.0892.6711.68.728
Speed avg20.511.8514.612.72.171 15.081.5714.290.30.262
PlayerLoad5.370.576.091.49.001*6.240.716.761.11.170
nStep227.607.92306.5072.83.001*300.6033.67307.0031.48.167
tStep328.994.52317.6438.06.831 315.4328.42319.297.66.738
tContact228.0523.20229.0979.44.807 245.2820.62264.478.33.737
tFly100.9319.1888.5541.37.831 70.1523.4854.820.66.738
FatigueCMJ34.276.6620.071.05.029*29.245.3322.215.75.688
Transition 2CyclingAvg speed cycle33.423.3833.450.35.032*30.442.7029.070.64.201
RunningTime78.405.90110.5026.16.340 70.8056.5798.337.09.334
Expl. Dist.14.5211.236.355.02.342 10.367.764.334.23.943
Distance 0–15 km/h17.606.53234.75275.98.019*183.58120.42243.6728.05.598
Distance 15.1–20 km/h127.6841.86199.2569.65.874 234.2619.01144.936.45.396
Distance 20.1–25 km/h270.6629.905.653.99.008*18.385.700.000.00.677
Distance > 25.1 km/h10.3215.460.000.00.005*0.160.360.000.00.679
HRMax191.608.73190.0012.73.216 186.2015.06191.6719.60.636
HRAvg186.807.98184.5012.02.276 179.2017.20185.6721.20.634
% HRMax93.403.9992.256.01.129 89.608.6092.8310.60.508
Speed avg19.770.9414.583.58.001*14.431.5814.060.35.239
PlayerLoad5.360.606.521.45.001*6.390.556.381.54.296
nStep235.6013.22323.0069.30.001*312.2034.05281.3322.37.256
tStep329.507.03325.9812.76.058 311.6930.22323.921.12.164
tContact232.9420.69228.3266.64.065 230.3933.74272.906.26.159
tFly96.5615.3897.6653.88.081 81.3032.8551.015.50.179
FatigueCMJ34.503.2423.973.60.032*29.604.6028.086.33.668
Transition 3CyclingAvg speed cycle33.683.7432.652.47.478 30.683.6628.931.66.294
RunningTime75.605.98112.0024.04.179 106.2017.9897.672.08.131
Expl. Dist.13.624.048.603.68.014*4.662.276.673.33.583
Distance 0–15 km/h12.964.77244.50250.74.003*178.88101.34185.3312.82.599
Distance 15.1–20 km/h119.4244.31190.0043.77.894 241.6639.97221.0023.65.464
Distance 20.1–25 km/h10.6817.240.000.00.091 0.000.000.000.00.422
Distance > 25.1 km/h193.209.01190.5012.02.002*186.2013.59192.6719.60.460
HRMax186.809.73185.5012.02.068 177.6015.84185.3320.40.393
HRAvg93.404.8792.756.01.016*88.807.9292.6710.20.404
% HRMax20.161.3614.173.31.005*14.391.4214.810.02.410
Speed avg5.350.396.351.35.003*6.190.956.631.29.708
PlayerLoad230.4016.98326.5068.59.006*305.6045.22291.0028.58.709
nStep330.527.44322.342.74.686 317.1016.31306.9317.68.863
tStep217.0430.81200.8918.49.478 249.4624.38226.9516.90.294
tContact113.4824.22121.4515.76.329 67.6411.6479.981.54.334
tFly32.183.8719.431.24.686 28.825.6222.275.05.863
FatigueCMJ32.983.4732.700.57.041*30.483.0728.971.36.887
Transition 4CyclingAvg speed cycle75.204.32111.0032.53.329 97.4012.64104.676.66.334
RunningTime15.407.717.700.42.413 8.406.339.503.84.272
Expl. Dist.18.845.82215.65270.75.776 158.7489.87197.3734.51.396
Distance 0–15 km/h113.8828.00176.8057.84.980 242.0428.63216.7713.40.288
Distance 15.1–20 km/h35.8422.8441.1516.26.058 4.561.841.130.67.778
Distance 20.1–25 km/h59.1279.530.000.00.042*0.000.000.000.00.778
Distance > 25.1 km/h194.208.98190.5013.44.332 186.2011.86192.0018.08.606
HRMax187.809.34185.0012.73.382 179.8012.79186.6720.21.603
HRAvg93.904.6792.506.36.128 89.906.4093.3310.10.740
% HRMax20.141.6514.863.88.001*14.901.0114.400.46.251
Speed avg5.740.356.341.53.001*6.011.046.951.15.246
PlayerLoad236.0012.35321.0082.02.001*287.8044.58302.6741.43.246
nStep327.134.17332.7811.24.174 307.4427.67312.256.03.018*
tStep224.1322.59233.3569.28.133 234.7332.03254.310.85.090
tContact101.0017.1399.4458.03.070 72.7134.3957.946.87.899
tFly32.983.4732.700.57.041*30.483.0728.971.36.887
FatigueCMJ30.746.0521.220.86.285 24.685.9720.255.18.376
* p < .05; Expl. Dist: explosive distance; HRMax: maximum heart rate; HRAvg: average heart rate; % HRMax: percentage of maximum heart rate; Speed Avg: average of velocity running phase; nStep: number of steps; tStep: time of step; tContact: time of contact; tFly: time of flight.
Table
Table 4. Descriptive and inferential results depending on the competitive level and use, or absence, of drafting.
Table 4. Descriptive and inferential results depending on the competitive level and use, or absence, of drafting.
EliteAmateur
without Draftingwith Drafting without Draftingwith Drafting
MeanSDMeanSDSig.*MeanSDMeanSDSig.*
Transition 1CyclingAvg speed cycle35.144.5333.993.31.055 28.443.2727.982.69.033
RunningTime88.8915.7482.0017.18.417 93.1816.5293.6717.48.936
Expl. Dist.12.026.0910.838.00.738 9.865.789.096.21.716
Distance 0–15 km/h85.5410.3273.7415.18.855 133.7813.35137.20143.02.945
Distance 15.1–20 km/h218.5822.23149.3919.63.000*192.485.53187.089.01.984
Distance 20.1–25 km/h99.4215.02178.6620.66.000*61.118.6145.037.22.057
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.892.6715.043.00.025*1.655.8814.9037.97.262
HRMax185.899.99188.439.25.611 185.5313.43187.4012.69.689
HRAvg181.449.58183.579.74.669 181.2912.87182.8713.40.737
% HRMax90.724.7991.794.87.669 90.656.4391.436.70.737
Speed avg17.132.4618.823.44.788 21.412.7721.483.25.692
PlayerLoad5.480.575.580.84.655 271.7141.63278.3347.41.676
nStep252.1135.96250.1449.07.972 16.262.5916.673.20.697
tStep333.7914.92325.7416.91.883 321.5231.12321.0119.61.981
tContact234.2429.64228.3537.56.580 231.9443.95241.2230.67.982
tFly99.5531.5497.3923.81.558 89.5823.9579.8030.67.033*
FatigueCMJ33.693.9530.218.82.329 39.843.8347.656.35.508
Transition 2CyclingAvg speed cycle35.391.7233.432.76.222 29.233.1228.513.01.145
RunningTime93.3318.7087.5719.56.702 94.034.5791.923.69.777
Expl. Dist.10.704.6812.1910.20.129 41.1917.5942.3925.94.239
Distance 0–15 km/h76.209.4879.6415.48.072 87.0042.98100.078.59.256
Distance 15.1–20 km/h225.7620.08148.1314.95.023*37.333.42153.9964.73.041*
Distance 20.1–25 km/h107.7414.97194.9419.67.032*263.6857.42105.3514.89.039*
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.000.007.3713.59.726 128.8246.4044.1010.65.164
HRMax187.569.37191.148.86.396 187.0012.25189.6012.63.142
HRAvg183.338.99186.148.23.902 182.9411.86183.7313.74.583
% HRMax91.674.4993.074.12.605 96.211.1991.876.87.599
Speed avg17.112.2518.293.02.950 20.972.1921.653.53.218
PlayerLoad5.620.745.690.96.412 5.770.465.280.46.412
nStep255.0043.98260.5752.30.058 260.5524.51261.5529.89.416
tStep324.779.74328.497.94.964 328.4414.11321.9818.65.912
tContact232.5442.27231.6232.10.812 236.1833.91239.4632.75.330
tFly92.2336.4896.8825.34.077*92.2619.8082.5132.70.355
FatigueCMJ29.587.4231.495.97.557 24.725.3229.324.43.404
Transition 3CyclingAvg speed cycle34.991.8333.393.26.487 33.813.7031.593.49.121
RunningTime91.6716.8786.0020.87.785 92.433.2492.562.99.183
Expl. Dist.12.316.0212.194.37.633 40.0124.5542.0523.57.410
Distance 0–15 km/h94.7810.6579.1115.25.886 93.8260.1085.734.90.709
Distance 15.1–20 km/h209.2820.01139.5915.41.032*187.8918.64267.472.52.021*
Distance 20.1–25 km/h302.0214.82198.7122.46.028*91.3714.6560.1310.41.049*
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.441.047.6315.01.351 130.5950.11156.8040.59.863
HRMax186.008.82192.438.94.480 185.8211.73190.4012.30.247
HRAvg182.228.09186.439.36.207 182.0011.35183.2713.64.272
% HRMax91.114.0493.214.68.079 94.651.1392.271.36.396
Speed avg16.612.1518.453.41.244 20.613.1321.263.10.917
PlayerLoad5.650.795.640.80.451 5.7140.57280.4050.66.778
nStep255.0040.87257.8656.35.523 275.7123.81266.373.10.919
tStep328.508.78328.187.36.295 330.3014.30320.2414.73.706
tContact242.9237.24212.4327.42.010*239.8431.12227.6828.61.710
tFly85.5833.74115.7521.15.027*90.4521.1292.5628.61.110
FatigueCMJ30.945.4328.547.00.884 28.344.8828.475.63.740
Transition 4CyclingAvg speed cycle34.882.3032.902.85.390 32.163.2331.833.16.205
RunningTime85.2213.4385.4322.23.441 91.5915.5293.2718.12.922
Expl. Dist.13.644.6113.207.33.357 11.0946.6210.866.47.251
Distance 0–15 km/h68.737.3475.0714.65.737 117.6812.66107.4212.02.246
Distance 15.1–20 km/h10.6710.2921.085.29.029*201.8821.44202.6588.49.765
Distance 20.1–25 km/h311.8735.10280.2114.82.041*54.3910.9485.8513.44.031*
Distance > 25.1 km/h0.581.2542.237.11.396 0.310.2319.715.14.018
HRMax182.0012.22193.149.34.391 184.7613.56190.6011.61.023
HRAvg176.0014.23187.009.33.617 179.2914.33184.5312.43.682
% HRMax88.007.1293.504.66.521 89.657.1692.276.21.678
Speed avg17.432.1118.633.31.318 21.322.9222.233.23.884
PlayerLoad5.670.715.910.75.170 5.960.875.150.95.255
nStep248.7835.93260.2954.25.402 264.8523.40256.543.02.265
tStep316.7223.21328.746.35.161 321.5523.02318.3418.59.394
tContact229.6341.97226.7634.06.380 231.0834.31234.9330.07.157
tFly87.0928.41100.5527.52.043*90.4811.2983.4211.48.194
FatigueCMJ30.984.6628.026.79.963 28.024.4925.135.86.466
* p < .05; Expl. Dist: explosive distance; HRMax: maximum heart rate; HRAvg: average heart rate; % HRMax: percentage of maximum heart rate; Speed Avg: average of velocity running phase; nStep: number of steps; tStep: time of step; tContact: time of contact; tFly: time of flight.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mancha-Triguero, D.; Pérez-Murillo, P.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Antúnez, A. Does the Physiological Response of a Triathlete Change in the Use or Absence of Drafting? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159366

AMA Style

Mancha-Triguero D, Pérez-Murillo P, Ibáñez SJ, Antúnez A. Does the Physiological Response of a Triathlete Change in the Use or Absence of Drafting? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159366

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mancha-Triguero, David, Pablo Pérez-Murillo, Sergio J. Ibáñez, and Antonio Antúnez. 2022. "Does the Physiological Response of a Triathlete Change in the Use or Absence of Drafting?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159366

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop