How Perceived Control Impacts the Physiological Limits of Performance
The Physical and Psychological- Impact on Limits of
Performance
When I was beginning my college journey in the world of exercise physiology,
VO2max was king. Stick someone on a treadmill, ramp up the pace or incline
until they fell off the back of the treadmill or cried uncle and then you were
given a magical number which defined your aerobic capacity. The thinking was,
once you maxed out, you maxed out. So that number was relatively consistent
from test to test. Your VO2max score defined you. You’d hear about Bjorn
Dahlie’s record number, or Steve Prefontaine’s ridiculously high VO2max. Of
course, there’d be disclaimers about the role of Running Economy, but that one
number had a lot of value.
As I’ve outlined here and in my book Science of Running, there are a lot of
issues with the ideas above, but one that is not discussed more, is the impact
of psychology on the physiological.
A few years ago, in the exercise science lab I took a dozen college runners and
put them through that same grueling VO2max test. Start off easy, then the
scientists ramps up the velocity according to a set schedule up, while the
athlete hopes to hold on for dear life, until they are exhausted in around 10
minutes. The machine spits out a number, we’re all good.
But there was a twist. When we ran
another VO2max test where instead of following the standard protocol we left it
up to the athletes to choose their speed and how fast they ramped them up, that
magical number the machine spit out at the end changed. Interestingly enough,
it changed significantly for the better athletes. Those who were the conference
scorers and NCAA qualifiers saw a significant bump. Their VO2max jumped when
they had control.
Read those last few sentences again. The better athletes saw a significant jump
when they had control. So the athletes you’d expect to be able to ‘push’
hardest regardless of the parameter, found something extra when they had
control.
Why? Control plays a large role in motivation and drive. When we feel like we
have control, we’re more likely to persist. A long line of research, from
exercise studies to surviving as a POW, to withstanding the harsh realities of
colonizing Jamestown in the 1600’s. When a perception of control fades
away, we quit early, we give up. Even, as was the case in Jamestown, if giving
up meant likely death.
The physiological and psychological are deeply intertwined. We know this
intuitively, but we often pay it lip service. Here’s a concrete example of that
impact
[…] How Perceived Control Impacts the Physiological Limits of Performance […]
This point was highlighted in Scientific American June 1976.
While I agree with your point on control, and appreciate the more broad coverage that you have given in other articles and books to the importance of cognitive and psychological factors in sport performance, your findings in self-selected intensity ramp vs standard protocol are not consistent with this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25010089/ I’m not sure why, and I’m not trying to diminish your point – I agree with it in general. I’m sure there are other examples.
Steve,
Thanks. Yes, I’m aware of this study. Another study found higher VO2max in self-paced versus normal: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24195621/
As to why our study found a difference, I only can speculate based on the data. In our study, the difference came when you looked at High level vs. low level college runners. I don’t have the data in front of me, but think of it like this, those who were sub 4:10 milers compared to 4:25 milers or above. The faster runners all had significantly better performances on self-paced than the traditional. For the lower level, they trended that way, but not substantially, with 1-2 runners being lower on the self-paced than the traditional.
Based on knowing the individuals in the study, I’d venture to guess their is an underlying psychological explanation.
Palladino always out to outsmart/discredit others…Stick to powermeter-ing!