REF-395 · Smits BLM, Polman RCJ, Otten B, Pepping GJ & Hettinga FJ, 2016 · Frontiers in Physiology, · Paper · PubMed
Cycling in the absence of task-related feedback: Effects on pacing and performance
Participants
n=20 experienced endurance athletes from a homogeneous cyclist population (mean 6.4 ± 5.5 years of experience, 4.6 ± 2.4 sessions/week — full text, checked 2026-09-27)
Protocol
20-km cycling time trial
Full Feedback group (FF; 10 riders — full text, checked 2026-09-27): could continuously consult speed, heart rate, power output, cadence, elapsed time and elapsed distance
No Feedback group (NoF; 10 riders — full text, checked 2026-09-27): received no feedback during the trial
Key Results
No between-group difference in performance time: FF 28.86 ± 3.68 min vs NoF 30.95 ± 2.77 min
No difference in mean power output per body mass: FF 3.61 ± 0.60 vs NoF 3.43 ± 0.38 W/kg
No differences in RPE
Power distribution differed: the most evident difference was the end spurt in FF, which NoF did not produce
Mechanism
Authors' conclusion: knowing the task demands in advance, plus relying on bodily and environmental cues, can be enough for experienced athletes to post comparable time-trial performances; pacing strategies differ depending on which information sources are available. This casts doubt on whether instantaneous in-race feedback from devices is necessary to maximise performance.
Practical Application
Twenty experienced cyclists rode a 20-km time trial either with full device feedback or with none: finishing times (28.86 vs 30.95 min) and power (3.61 vs 3.43 W/kg) did not differ significantly, nor did RPE — only the pacing shape did, with the feedback group producing an end spurt the blind group did not. Experienced riders pace a known distance by feel about as well as by numbers.
Feedback changes how you pace more than how fast you go — in this sample, at this distance
Supports periodic device-free training to strengthen internal pacing (the study is a first indication, in the authors' words, not a prescription)
Inference, not tested: the missing end spurt without feedback suggests the display's clearest value is knowing when to empty the tank; on a well-known course an athlete could hide the screen and keep a distance-to-go cue
Not from this paper: with six metrics on screen at once, trained cyclists' 30-min time-trial power dropped versus a single metric (REF-396) — less feedback is not the same as no feedback
Limitations
20-km time trial only — may not apply to ultra-distance or multi-hour events
Between-groups design with two small groups; a 2-min mean time difference in favour of feedback was not significant but the study is small
Lab setting (ergometer), not outdoor
Experienced athletes only — novices may benefit more from feedback
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A-: parallel controlled trial, n=20 in two groups
Content correction 2026-09-27
"NoF showed steady effort with midpoint surge" -> not in the abstract, which reports only that power distribution differed and that FF produced an end spurt; removed.
"Body's internal governor (RPE) is as effective as external data" and "consider hiding power meter display" -> inference, labelled.
Lines labelled "full text; not checked against the abstract" were checked against the open-access full text (PMC4978720): every number in them appears there; relabelled "full text, checked 2026-09-27".