Toolbox: Lying to Ourselves

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

by Stephen Cheung

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. Can lying to yourself 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.

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.

In my own field of thermophysiology, my studies have explored how much voluntary muscle recruitment we are capable of as we
heat up, demonstrating that a rising core temperature decreases our voluntary muscle capacity. Others have shown that marathon
performances worsen 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.

Stuck in a Groove
In the latest proposals for how the body fatigues and what factors go into it, another important mechanism or driving force is 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 race (let’s say a time trial to keep pack dynamics out of it).

This template includes many factors. The first and probably most important is simply prior experience. If you know and are
convinced that your best ever 10 km TT is 15 min (40 km/h), subconsciously that’s the rough effort that you will default towards
at the start. You won’t go at a 50 km/h average because you quickly receive physical sensations (e.g. high lactate levels,
ventilation rate, and heart rate) that’s too hard to sustain. And you won’t put up with a 30 km/h average 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.

Wilson et al. 2012

So motivation and physically sensing the environment can adjust your default performance template. But what about the simple
psychological trick of lying to yourself? Last week, Dr. Jim Taylor wrote about the powers of positive and negative self-talk.
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 even help?

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 (>8h cycling per week, experienced in time trials) performed 4×10 mile TTs on SRM
stationary bikes. The four conditions involved:
1. Accurate feedback: participants were told a slate of information, including times, power output, speed, distance completed, etc.
The paper did not state the frequency of such feedback. As the participants breathed through a mouthpiece for oxygen
consumption, I would guess the feedback was at set times rather than ad lib or requested by the participants.

2. No feedback: as implied, no feedback of any kind.

3. False Positive feedback: at 1-mile intervals, participants were told their false split times, namely 5% faster than their actual
performance.

4. False Negative feedback: at the same 1-mile intervals, split times of 5% slower than actual were provided.

Overall, 5% was chosen as a compromise, as a too large of a difference (e.g. 10%) would likely have made the participants
realize that something fishy was up. The authors claimed that participants were deceived to the true purpose of the study, with
them originally being told that the study was to test the reliability of a 10-mile TT protocol. However, I’m not sure how this
could really be properly implemented, as one trial provided lots of different feedback, while another provided none at all and two
others provided only one parameter.

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: 1547 +/- 73 s; 252 +/- 22 W

• No feedback: 1542 +/- 56 s; 243 +/- 24 W

• False Positive feedback: 1535 +/- 61 s; 244 +/- 23 W

• False Negative feedback: 1533 +/- 62 s; 243 +/- 27 W

Again, there were no statistical significance across the four trials in performance time, first and second half split times, or any
physiological measures. However, I’m a bit confused by the data, in that the “slowest” condition (Accurate feedback) also had a
10 W higher average power output. Honestly, I’m a bit stumped at how to reconcile this, and the authors made no attempt to
address this in the Discussion portion of the paper.

Summary
So 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.

If I was a coach or directeur sportif, what would I take from this study in terms of how to manage my 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.

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that though. Every leader knows that different people respond to different buttons. Some in
general may thrive on one style and be completely turned off by another. And that same person may also need different styles at
different times. Given the limitations I found in this article, I wouldn’t stray from this principle yet.

Ride fast and have fun!

Reference
Wilson MG, Lane AM, Beedie CJ, Farooq A (2012) Influence of accurate and inaccurate ‘split-time’ feedback upon 10-mile time
trial cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:231-236
Toolbox: Chasing Fast
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
by Stephen Cheung

The Central Governor hypothesis proposes that our brains ultimately governs how hard we’re willing to ride, so
it makes a great target for manipulating to improve our performance. How might we practically use this ability to ride faster?

Central Governor Review

My May Toolbox article discussed the importance of the psycho-physiological relationship in determining performance.
Ultimately, the main tenet of this “central governor hypothesis” is that the brain-body relies on both physiological cues (e.g.
lactate levels, muscular fatigue, temperature) and also psychological cues (e.g. motivation, knowledge of performance, self-
confidence, distance to finish) to regulate how hard we’re willing to ride at any point in time.

Rigging the System

The big implication from the central governor is that the brain can be messed with, in a good and ergogenic way. The critical
component of this is that the brain is told something different from what is actually happening.

Physiologically, we might achieve this by keeping our neck and head area cooler through the use of ice socks or pouring cool
water over our heads. This can help to fool our brain into thinking it’s cooler than it really is, which may help us be willing to
ride harder. NB. This can be risky at the extremes of hot temperatures, as this might lead to working too hard and risking heat
illness.

Psychologically, one way towards “rigging” the central governor is through different sport psychology interventions, which I will
leave to Jim Taylor and our other Toolbox crew. The other way is through altering your real-time feedback so that you’re
thinking you’re performing different than reality.

Stone et al. 2012

We dissected an article in my May Toolbox where the focus was on lying to the participants that they were going faster or slower
than they actually were. In large part, the results were inconclusive and did not find any difference between the accurate, faster
lying, and slower lying conditions. The basic conclusion then is that it doesn’t matter what you tell your athlete about how
they’re performing, because they will just ride to their own desires and self-knowledge.

But as expected, it’s rarely as simple as that, and it may be possible to trick your brain.

In the March 2012 issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, a UK group tested whether you can gain improved
performance by chasing someone who’s going faster than you realize (Stone et al. 2012).

The analogy to think of is seeing a rider in the distance ahead of you. That innate competitive nature we have as cyclists and
athletes can drive us to ride faster than we think possible in order to chase down that rider.

With that general idea or context in mind, let’s check out the study details:

• Nine trained male cyclists did four 4000 m time trials on a Velotron cycle ergometer.

• The first trial was a familiarization ride, and the second was the Baseline (BL) trial.

• The Velotron avatar that is available as a racing partner on the 3D software was then set to exactly replicate the BL performance
in one test condition (accurate or ACC trial).
• In the fourth condition, the Velotron avatar was set at 102% of the wattage during the BL trial (deception or DEC trial). The 2%
improvement was a balance between being too big a change to be sensed by the riders, and also what would constitute a
significant performance gain.

• The deception occurred in that participants were told the study aims were to test the consistency and reliability of performance.

• Feedback consisted only of riding versus the avatar and distance completed.

The Truth Comes Out

So the basic goal or thrust of the study is to see whether, when the focus was externalized towards an opponent, the competition
can draw out a stronger ride. In comparison, the Wilson et al. (Wilson et al. 2012) study I discussed in May was more of an
internal challenge and manipulation without the same competition focus. What happened with the deception and racing against
someone?

• First and foremost – the DEC was quicker than BL.

• ACC was also quicker than BL, and intermediate between DEC and BL.

• The same pattern was seen with ratings of perceived exertion. DEC > BL and ACC > BL.

This is interesting in that the improved competition provided by the presence of an avatar, and also a faster avatar drove the
participants not only to a higher power output but also a higher perceived effort. So here is excellent proof that competition
pushes us – willingly – to harder efforts than we’d be able to ride solo.

• The improvement in DEC trial seemed to come from a greater anaerobic contribution to power output.

This also supports the contention that better competition pushes us harder. Furthermore, this suggests that we all have a latent
physical reserve that only gets really tapped when we become highly motivated, such as when we’re competing.

Summary
I really liked the design and execution of this study. Having recently published two studies myself where deception was critical to
the design (Hartley and Cheung 2013; Hartley et al. 2012), I know how hard this may be to achieve but also how important it is
to properly understand the impact of psychological factors on physical performance.

There are some big messages from this study, which I have hinted at above:

1. If you want to improve, you can push yourself physically so much harder by riding in a fast group or competing. You may be
able to better control your efforts when riding solo, but it is mentally so much more taxing to do those hard efforts solo. So don’t
be a slave to your power numbers. Instead, mix your solo interval workouts with hard group rides, club races, and actual races.
They will give you a terrifically hard workout without draining your mental batteries as much.

2. To get the most out of those hard group rides, ignore what your power or heart rate monitor is saying and just RIDE! Don’t use
your known power profile as a crutch but instead live in the moment. Remember, it doesn’t matter whether you’re able to hold
300 W or 330 W for 3 min. The only thing that matters is closing that wheel or sprinting for the line!

3. The other way to get the most out of those hard group rides is to ride with/against people faster than you. Fighting in that
harder environment to hang on in the hills, contribute to the paceline, etc. is going to push you harder than riding against a
weaker group.

4. No matter how hard you may think you’re pushing yourself, chances are that you physically still have more in reserve. How
much you’re able to tap into that reserve may be what separates the winners from the dropped. So no matter how perfect your
physical training, do not ignore the psychological side of training, because that’s going to be your key to unlocking the last bits of
your potential!
Ride fast and have fun!

References

Hartley GL, Cheung SS (2013) Freely chosen cadence during a covert manipulation of ambient temperature. Motor
Control 17:34-47

Hartley GL, Flouris AD, Plyley MJ, Cheung SS (2012) The effect of a covert manipulation of ambient temperature on heat
storage and voluntary exercise intensity. Physiol Behav105:1194-1201

Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, Jones AM, St Clair Gibson A, Thompson KG (2012) Effects of deception on exercise
performance: implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 44:534-541

Wilson MG, Lane AM, Beedie CJ, Farooq A (2012) Influence of accurate and inaccurate ‘split-time’ feedback upon 10-mile time
trial cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:231-236