Cycling Motivation: Is it Really Mind Over Matter?

Many things go wandering through between our ears over the course of a time trial. We do our best to ignore the constant chorus of pain and agony. One way to do that is to tell ourselves some stories, like maybe we're doing better than we actually are. But can lying to yourself really make you faster?

Bridging the Chasm

Over the past dozen years, perhaps the most interesting paradigm shift in exercise physiology is its open integration with the world of sport psychology. No longer two distinct and disconnected fields, more and more scientists on both sides of the great divide between the mind and the body are realizing that the chasm was actually "in the mind" rather than in reality.

Featured Events

Specifically, one of the hottest topics in exercise science is understanding the role of how physiological afferents (physical sensations like temperature, breathing rate, muscle strain, etc.) are integrated into an overall sensation of effort in the brain, and how this then becomes used by the body to determine how hard it can, or is willing, to work.

More: Cyclists: How to Do Your Own Performance Testing

In my own field of thermo-physiology, the basis of my studies have explored how much voluntary muscle recruitment we are capable of as we exercise, demonstrating that a rising core temperature decreases our voluntary muscle capacity.

Other studies show that marathon performances are worse across all ability levels as it gets warmer, even though our actual physiological capacity to sprint in the latter stages of a run show that we're nowhere near our physical capacity. So when does the brain begin to control our physiologic efforts?

More: The Role of Personality in Cycling Performance

Stuck in a Groove

In the latest proposals for how the body fatigues and what factors go into it, scientists have identified another important mechanism or driving force called the "template" that the brain works from. While we may integrate physical sensations in real time, we all start with a pre-conceived plan for how we'll tackle a workout or a race (let's say a time trial to keep pack dynamics out of it).

The brain's template includes many factors. The first and probably most important criteria is simply prior experience. If you know and are convinced that your best ever 10K time trial is 15 minutes (40 kilometer per hour pace), subconsciously that's the rough effort that you will default towards at the start.

More: Does Science Prove That Competition Improves Performance?

You won't go at a 50 km/h average speed because you quickly receive physical sensations (e.g. high lactate levels, ventilation rate, and heart rate) that it's too hard to sustain. And you won't put up with a 30 km/h average speed because you'll just feel that is too slow.

From that initial 40 km/h template, you might "choose" to pace yourself a bit slower because you feel that it's really hot out. Or you might be wearing the maglia rosa and have tons of motivation and confidence, and might therefore be much more willing to put up with the pain of a harder effort.

More: The Mind of a Mentally Fit Pro

Wilson et al. 2012

So motivation and physically sensing the environment can adjust your brain's default performance template. But what about the simple psychological trick of lying to yourself? What if you were being told that you're going better than you actually are? Or conversely, what if you were being told that you're riding much slower than you actually are? Does external feedback of any kind aid performance?

This basic idea was the focus of a study from Wilson et al. in the European Journal of Applied Physiology in 2012 (Wilson et al. 2012). Seven "well-trained" cyclists (averaging more than 8 hours of cycling per week and experienced in time trial racing) performed four 10-mile time trials on SRM stationary bikes. Each of the four tests were set as follows:

1. Accurate feedback: Participants were told a slate of information, including times, power output, speed, and distance completed. The study did not state the frequency feedback was given. Participants also breathed through a mouthpiece for oxygen consumption.
2. No feedback: as implied, no feedback of any kind during time trial.
3. False Positive feedback: At 1-mile intervals participants were told their false split times to be 5 percent faster than their actual performance time.
4. False Negative feedback: At the same 1-mile intervals participants were told their split times were 5percent slower than actual performance.

More: Mind Over Mountain: Mental Tips for Climbing

Overall, 5 percent was chosen as a compromise, as too large of a difference (e.g. 10 percent) would likely have made the participants realize that inaccurate information was being given. The authors of the study claimed that participants were deceived to the true purpose of the study, with the participants only being told that the study was to test the reliability of a 10-mile time trial protocol and not the link between the psychology of the mind and the physiological affects of the body's performance.

The Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

The most important finding from the data? The presence or quality of the feedback didn't seem to make any significant difference in performance results.

• Accurate feedback: 15:47 (10-mile), +/- 73 seconds; 252 Watts, +/- 22 Watts
• No feedback: 15:42 (10-mile), +/- 56 seconds; 243Watts, +/- 24 Watts
• False Positive feedback: 15:35 (10-mile) +/- 61 seconds; 244 Watts, +/- 23 Watts
• False Negative feedback: 15:33 (10-mile), +/- 62 seconds; 243 Watts +/- 27 Watts

The results above show no statistical significance across the four trials in terms of performance time, first and second half split times, or any other physiological measurements.

More: 6 Pre-Race Mental Preparation Tips for Cyclists

With that being said, I am curious about the data from the Accurate feedback test group, which turned in the slowest times but the highest Watts. Perhaps this is an error in the recording of the measurements as these numbers don't match up, and the authors made no attempt to address this in the discussion portion of the study.

Summary

Scientifically, this was definitely not the best paper I've come across (the authors also made other extrapolations from their data that I'm not that confident in, but I'll ignore that for the purpose of this article). But it is an interesting example of the integration of physiology and psychology in sport science, and in this case, the sport of cycling.

More: Improve Your Cycling: Train Your Mind

If I were a coach or director sportif, what would I take from this study to better manage my team of riders? Objectively, it would appear to absolve them of any role, in that "boys will be boys" and an athlete will just do what they feel like doing regardless of external involvement.

However, I think the reality is a bit more nuanced than the results indicate. Every leader knows that different people respond to different motivations. Some athletes will thrive with even a certain style of coaching and be completely turned off by another. And that same person may also need different styles of coaching or motivations at different times and on different days. Given the limitations I found in this article, I wouldn't stray from this principle just yet.

More: Can Music Help Your Cycling Performance?

Ready to ride? Search for a cycling event

---

Source: Wilson MG, Lane AM, Beedie CJ, Farooq A (2012). Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology 112:231-236.