ROLLERS VERSUS TRAINERS: 10-KM TIME TRIAL
T. Devlin1, P. Barham1, A. Berni1, C. Cundari1, B. Davis1, A. Doty1, M. Eudy1, C. Fordham1, T.
Milleson, T. Osmon1, S. Reybold1, A. Springhetti1, T. Barreira, Ph.D. 2 and W. Tseh, Ph.D. 1
1University of North Carolina Wilmington
2Pennington Biomedical Research Center
Background and Purpose
Practitioners, coaches, and cycling
enthusiasts have debated which training tool
is the most effective in enhancing cycling
performance. Due to the paucity of research,
the objective of this investigation, therefore,
was to determine which cycling training
device, Rollers or Trainers, is most effective in
improving a 10-km time trial.
Methodology
Eight male and six female volunteers
provided informed consent prior to
participation. After assessing baseline 10-km
time trials, participants were randomly
selected into one of three groups: Rollers (R),
Trainers (T), or Control (C). Participants using
R or T attended 24 workout sessions
throughout an 8-wk period (F: 3 days/week; I:
65-80% HRmax; D: 40 min; M: R or T). ANCOVA
was used to determine if significant mean
differences between groups existed in the
post-assessment 10-km time trial when
controlling for baseline values. Bonferroni
post-hoc testing was used to determine mean
differences between groups.
Results
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for sample (N = 14)
Groups
Age (yrs)
Height (cm) Body Mass (kg)
Rollers
(n=5)
23.4 ± 3.7
173.5 ± 10.4
67.6 ± 9.4
Trainers
(n=5)
25.0 ± 6.5
171.2 ± 10.4
65.6 ± 11.3
Control
(n=4)
22.0 ± 3.4
173.5 ± 11.2
72.8± 11.7
Table 2. Mean group values pre- and post-intervention.
Body Fat (%)
VO2max (ml·kg-1·min-1)
10-km TT (s)
Groups
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
DIFF
Rollers
15.0 ± 7.0
15.5 ± 7.0
61.5 ± 6.9
59.5 ± 4.0
1011 ± 126.3
990.6 ± 113.4a
-20.4
Trainers
15.4 ± 5.4
13.3 ± 4.8
59.1 ± 10.8
63.8 ± 11.5
1021.4 ± 133.2
1008.6 ± 125.9a
-12.8
Control
21.1 ± 10.9
20.8 ± 11.5
62.8 ± 12.5
59.8 ± 13.3
1008.5 ± 189.2
1010 ± 192.7
1.5
a p ≤ 0.05
There were no significant mean differences in baseline 10-km time trial between R, T, and C groups [F = 0.34, p = .72]. There
was a significant mean difference in 10-km time trial improvement between groups post-assessment when controlling for
baseline values (F = 17.04, p <.001). Participants training with R improved by 20.4s [t(4) = 4.86, p = .008] and T participants
improved by 12.8s [t(4) = 4.57, p = .01], while there was no significant improvement for C.
Conclusions
Participants using R and T displayed significant decrements in time with respect to the 10-km time trial. However, R had a
greater improvement in 10-km time trial when compared to T.
Supported by ELITE S.r.l.; Via Fornaci, 4; 35014 Fontaniva (Pd); Italy