We conducted a counterbalanced repeated measure trial to investigate the effect of different internal and external associative strategies on endurance performance. Seventeen college-aged students were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions to test the notion that different attention-performance types (optimal Type 1, functional Type 2, and dysfunctional Type 3) would influence endurance time on a cycling task. Specifically, Type 1 represented an effortless and automatic, “flow-feeling” attentional mode. Type 2 referred to an associative focus directed at core components of the task. Type 3 represented an attentional focus directed at irrelevant components of the task. Participants completed three time-to-exhaustion-tests while reporting their perceived exertion and affective states (arousal and hedonic tone). Results revealed that Type 1 and Type 2 attentional strategies, compared with Type 3 strategy, exerted functional effects on performance, whereas a Type 3 strategy was linked to lower performance, and lower levels of arousal and pleasantness. Applied implications are discussed.
To Focus or Not to Focus: Is Attention on the Core Components of Action Beneficial for Cycling Performance?
Maurizio Bertollo, Selenia di Fronso, Edson Filho, Vito Lamberti, Patrizio Ripari, Victor Machado Reis, Silvia Comani, Laura Bortoli, and Claudio Robazza
Bioenergetic Analysis and Fatigue Assessment During the Fran Workout in Experienced Crossfitters
Manoel Rios, Rodrigo Zacca, Rui Azevedo, Pedro Fonseca, David B. Pyne, Victor Machado Reis, Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves, and Ricardo J. Fernandes
Aim: To quantify the physiological demands and impact of muscle function t of the Fran workout, one of the most popular CrossFit benchmarks. Methods: Twenty experienced CrossFitters—16 male: 29 (6) years old and 4 female: 26 (5) years old— performed 3 rounds (with 30-s rests in between) of 21–21, 15–15, and 9–9 front squats to overhead press plus pull-up repetitions. Oxygen uptake and heart rate were measured at baseline, during the workout, and in the recovery period. Rating of perceived exertion, blood lactate, and glucose concentrations were assessed at rest, during the intervals, and in the recovery period. Muscular fatigue was also monitored at rest and at 5 minutes, 30 minutes, and 24 hours postexercise. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to compare time points. Results: Aerobic (52%–29%) and anaerobic alactic (30%–23%) energy contributions decreased and the anaerobic lactic contribution increased (18%–48%) across the 3 rounds of the Fran workout. Countermovement jump height decreased by 8% (−12 to −3) mean change (95% CI), flight duration by 14% (−19 to −7), maximum velocity by 3% (−5 to −0.1), peak force 4% (−7 to −0.1), and physical performance (plank prone 47% [−54 to −38]) were observed. Conclusions: It appears that the Fran workout is a physically demanding activity that recruits energy from both aerobic and anaerobic systems. This severe-intensity workout evokes substantial postexercise fatigue and corresponding reduction in muscle function.