Physiological and psychological responses to outdoor vs. laboratory cycling

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 4 Citations

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 - 2014

Fingerprint

Psychology
Specific Gravity
Skin Temperature
Heart Rate
Body Weight
Urine
Temperature
Hot Temperature
Exercise
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, 2014, p. 2324-2329.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 28, No. 8, 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",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384",
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

Y1 - 2014

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

VL - 28

SP - 2324

EP - 2329

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

T2 - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 8

ER -