Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling

Molly E. Mieras, Matthew W.S. Heesch, Dustin R. Slivka

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    8 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory vs. outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session and 2 experimental trials consisting of 1 laboratory and 1 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 in the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0 m·s-1, p = 0.02) whereas all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs. 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and HR (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 b·min-1, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, whereas skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than during 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, USG, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than in 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.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)2324-2329
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of strength and conditioning research
    Volume28
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Aug 2014

    Fingerprint

    Psychology
    Specific Gravity
    Skin Temperature
    Heart Rate
    Body Weight
    Urine
    Temperature
    Hot Temperature
    Skin

    Keywords

    • Core temperature
    • Environmental conditions
    • Skin temperature
    • Thermal gradient

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
    • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

    Cite this

    Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling. / Mieras, Molly E.; Heesch, Matthew W.S.; Slivka, Dustin R.

    In: Journal of strength and conditioning research, Vol. 28, No. 8, 08.2014, p. 2324-2329.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{80b3e7c5e528426b821f3fc5436d8056,
    title = "Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling",
    abstract = "The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory vs. outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session and 2 experimental trials consisting of 1 laboratory and 1 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 in the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0 m·s-1, p = 0.02) whereas all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs. 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and HR (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 b·min-1, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, whereas skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than during 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, USG, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than in 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.",
    keywords = "Core temperature, Environmental conditions, Skin temperature, Thermal gradient",
    author = "Mieras, {Molly E.} and Heesch, {Matthew W.S.} and Slivka, {Dustin R.}",
    year = "2014",
    month = "8",
    doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "28",
    pages = "2324--2329",
    journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
    issn = "1064-8011",
    publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",
    number = "8",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling

    AU - Mieras, Molly E.

    AU - Heesch, Matthew W.S.

    AU - Slivka, Dustin R.

    PY - 2014/8

    Y1 - 2014/8

    N2 - The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory vs. outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session and 2 experimental trials consisting of 1 laboratory and 1 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 in the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0 m·s-1, p = 0.02) whereas all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs. 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and HR (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 b·min-1, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, whereas skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than during 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, USG, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than in 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.

    AB - The purpose of this study was to determine the physiological and psychological responses to laboratory vs. outdoor cycling. Twelve recreationally trained male cyclists participated in an initial descriptive testing session and 2 experimental trials consisting of 1 laboratory and 1 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 in the laboratory trial (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0 m·s-1, p = 0.02) whereas all other environmental conditions were similar. Power output (208.1 ± 10.2 vs. 163.4 ± 11.8 W, respectively, p < 0.001) and HR (152 ± 4 and 143 ± 6 b·min-1, respectively, p = 0.04) were higher in the outdoor trial than in the laboratory trial. Core temperature was similar, whereas skin temperature was cooler during the outdoor trial than during 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, USG, RPE, or attentional focus were observed between trials. These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than in 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.

    KW - Core temperature

    KW - Environmental conditions

    KW - Skin temperature

    KW - Thermal gradient

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905824350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905824350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384

    DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 24476776

    AN - SCOPUS:84905824350

    VL - 28

    SP - 2324

    EP - 2329

    JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

    JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

    SN - 1064-8011

    IS - 8

    ER -