Skip to content

Study note

The Influence of Mid-Event Deception on Psychophysiological Status and Pacing Can Persist across Consecutive Disciplines and Enhance Self-paced Multi-modal Endurance Performance.

PMID 28174540 (2017): pacing, rpe — Time-trial performance (study note for endurance athletes).

Updated Jul 22, 2026

Read the study note

Study note • PMID 28174540

The Influence of Mid-Event Deception on Psychophysiological Status and Pacing Can Persist across Consecutive Disciplines and Enhance Self-paced Multi-modal Endurance Performance.

Frontiers in physiology2017 • DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00006

How to use this page

This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.

  • Design signal: controlled study.
  • Population relevance: athlete/trained context.
  • Consistency: single-study evidence.
  • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.

ELI5

In plain language

To examine the effects of deceptively aggressive bike pacing on performance, pacing, and associated physiological and perceptual responses during simulated sprint-distance triathlon. (controlled study; elite triathletes).

The abstract reports an association involving Time-trial performance (not necessarily causation). Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: To examine the effects of deceptively aggressive bike pacing on performance, pacing, and associated physiological and perceptual responses during simulated sprint-distance triathlon.
  • The abstract reports an association involving Time-trial performance (not necessarily causation).
  • Population: elite triathletes.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 75 km • 5 km.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: pacing, rpe (vs comparison group).
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 75 km • 5 km.
  • Outcomes: Time-trial performance.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it may help, and who should be cautious

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (elite triathletes) working on pacing.
  • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should be cautious

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: controlled study.
  • Population: elite triathletes.
  • Comparator: comparison group.
  • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 75 km • 5 km.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 28174540 (2017) — Frontiers in physiology.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

Compared to BL, a significantly faster run performance was observed following DEC cycling (p < 0.05) but not following HON cycling (1348 +/- 140 vs.

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations and bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Adaptive AI coach for iPhone

Meet your adaptive AI coach.

Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.

Keep going

Sources