The relationships between sport sciences and sports are complex and changeable, and it is not clear how they reciprocally influence each other. By looking at the relationship between sport sciences and the “new” (~30-year-old) sport of triathlon, together with changes in scientific fields or topics that have occurred between 1984 and 2006 (278 publications), one observes that the change in the sport itself (eg, distance of the events, wetsuit, and drafting) can influence the specific focus of investigation. The sport-scientific fraternity has successfully used triathlon as a model of prolonged strenuous competition to investigate acute physiological adaptations and trauma, as support for better understanding cross-training effects, and, more recently, as a competitive sport with specific demands and physiological features. This commentary discusses the evolution of the scientific study of triathlon and how the development of the sport has affected the nature of scientific investigation directly related to triathlon and endurance sport in general.
Gregoire P. Millet, David J. Bentley and Veronica E. Vleck
Joana F. Reis, Gregoire P. Millet, Davide Malatesta, Belle Roels, Fabio Borrani, Veronica E. Vleck and Francisco B. Alves
The aim of this study was to compare VO2 kinetics during constant power cycle exercise measured using a conventional facemask (CM) or a respiratory snorkel (RS) designed for breath-by-breath analysis in swimming.
VO2 kinetics parameters—obtained using CM or RS, in randomized counterbalanced order—were compared in 10 trained triathletes performing two submaximal heavy-intensity cycling square-wave transitions. These VO2 kinetics parameters (ie, time delay: td1, td2; time constant: τ1, τ2; amplitude: A1, A2, for the primary phase and slow component, respectively) were modeled using a double exponential function. In the case of the RS data, this model incorporated an individually determined snorkel delay (ISD).
Only td1 (8.9 ± 3.0 vs 13.8 ± 1.8 s, P < .01) differed between CM and RS, whereas all other parameters were not different (τ1 = 24.7 ± 7.6 vs 21.1 ± 6.3 s; A1 = 39.4 ± 5.3 vs 36.8 ± 5.1 mL·min−1·kg−1; td = 107.5 ± 87.4 vs 183.5 ± 75.9 s; A2' (relevant slow component amplitude) = 2.6 ± 2.4 vs 3.1 ± 2.6 mL·min−1·kg−1 for CM and RS, respectively).
Although there can be a small mixture of breaths allowed by the volume of the snorkel in the transition to exercise, this does not appear to significantly influence the results. Therefore, given the use of an ISD, the RS is a valid instrument for the determination of VO2 kinetics within submaximal exercise.