Endurance exercise bouts require sustained exertion and the precise regulation of energy expenditure. Without accurate knowledge of the task demands and performance metrics (e.g., speed, distance), individuals may struggle to establish or maintain effective pacing strategies. Providing deceptive information about the task can be a useful experimental tool for exploring the phenomenon of pacing and endurance performance. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize existing research on the effect of deception on performance outcomes in endurance sport tasks. An electronic search was performed across four databases and 21 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Studies investigated deception of time, split pace, power output, anticipated difficulty, speed, previous performance, and presence of a competitor within cycling, running, and/or triathlon tasks. Various methodologies, including different types and percentages of deception, were utilized across studies in review. Time deception does not appear to influence cycling performance but may influence pacing strategy. Competitor deception appears to improve endurance performance, however the effects of speed and power deception had conflicting findings within the literature. Due to the discrepancies across studies and most studies using male cyclists, future research should consider the effects of deceptive feedback in other endurance tasks as well as in more diverse samples and utilizing mixed-method designs.
AlbertusY.TuckerR.GibsonA. S. C.LambertE. V.HampsonD. B.NoakesT. D. (2005). Effect of distance feedback on pacing strategy and perceived exertion during cycling. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(3), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000155700.72702.76
AnsdellP.ThomasK.HowatsonG.AmannM.GoodallS. (2018). Deception improves time trial performance in well-trained cyclists without augmented fatigue TT performance in well-trained cyclists without augmented fatigue. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(4), 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001483
5.
BadenD. A.McleanT. L.TuckerR.NoakesT. D.St Clair GibsonA. (2005). Effect of anticipation during unknown or unexpected exercise duration on rating of perceived exertion, affect, and physiological function. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(10), 742–746. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2004.016980
6.
BadenD. A.Warwick-EvansL. A.LakomyJ. (2004). Am I nearly there? The effect of anticipated running distance on perceived exertion and attentional focus. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.215
BeedieC. J.LaneA. M.WilsonM. G. (2012). A possible role for emotion and emotion regulation in physiological responses to false performance feedback in 10-mile laboratory cycling. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 37(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-012-9200-7
9.
BrickN. E.FitzpatrickB. L.TurkingtonR.MallettJ. C. (2019). Anticipated task difficulty provokes pace conservation and slower running performance difficulty provokes pace conservation and slower running performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(4), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001844
10.
CastleP. C.MaxwellN.AllchornA.MaugerA. R.WhiteD. K. (2012). Deception of ambient and body core temperature improves self-paced cycling in hot, humid conditions. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(1), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-1988-y
11.
CoquartJ. B.StevensonA.GarcinM. (2011). Causal influences of expected running length on ratings of perceived exertion and estimation time limit scales. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 42(2), 149–166.
12.
CorbettJ.BarwoodM. J.OuzounoglouA.ThelwellR.DicksM. (2012). Influence of competition on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44(3), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31823378b1
13.
CraigA. D. (2008). Interoception and emotion: A neuroanatomical perspective. In LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M.BarrettL. F. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 272–292). The Guilford Press.
14.
CruzR. S. D. O.AguiarR. A.TurnesT.LisbôaF. D.RaimundoJ. A. G.CaputoF. (2018). Reliability of a laboratory-based long sprint cycling test: Applications of the smallest worthwhile changes in performance for repeated measures designs. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano, 20(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2018v20n2p201
15.
DaviesM. J.ClarkB.Garvican-LewisL. A.WelvaertM.GoreC. J.ThompsonK. G. (2019). The potential to change pacing and performance during 4000-m cycling time trials using hyperoxia and inspired gas-content deception. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(7), 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0335
16.
DemarieS.PyckeJ. R.PizzutiA.BillatV. (2023). Pacing of human locomotion on land and in water: 1500 m swimming vs. 5000 m running. Applied Sciences, 13(11), 6455. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116455
17.
DucrocqG. P.HureauT. J.MesteO.BlainG. M. (2017). Increased fatigue response to augmented deceptive feedback during cycling time trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 49(8), 1541–1551. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001272
18.
EdwardsA. M.PolmanR. C. J. (2013). Pacing and awareness: Brain regulation of physical activity. Sports Medicine, 43(11), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0091-4
19.
EstonR.StansfieldR.WestobyP.ParfittG. (2012). Effect of deception and expected exercise duration on psychological and physiological variables during treadmill running and cycling. Psychophysiology, 49(4), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01330.x
20.
FaulknerJ.ArnoldT.EstonR. (2011). Effect of accurate and inaccurate distance feedback on performance markers and pacing strategies during running. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(6), e176–e183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01233.x
GuyattG. H.MillsE. J.ElbourneD. (2008). In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter?PLoS Medicine, 5(1), Article e4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
23.
HampsonD. B.St Clair GibsonA.LambertM. I.DugasJ. P.LambertE. V.NoakesT. D. (2004). Deception and perceived exertion during high-intensity running bouts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3), 1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.3.1027-1038
24.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.Welch (2019). In V. A. (Ed.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
25.
HuL.MotlR. W.McAuleyE.KonopackJ. F. (2007). Effects of self-efficacy on physical activity enjoyment in college-aged women. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03004174
26.
JonesH. S.WilliamsE. L.BridgeC. A.MarchantD.MidgleyA. W.MicklewrightD.McNaughtonL. R. (2013). Physiological and psychological effects of deception on pacing strategy and performance: A review. Sports Medicine, 43(12), 1243–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0094-1
27.
JonesH. S.WilliamsE. L.MarchantD. C.SparksS. A.BridgeC. A.MidgleyA. W.Mc NaughtonL. R. (2016a). Deception has no acute or residual effect on cycling time trial performance but negatively effects perceptual responses. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19(9), 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.12.006
28.
JonesH. S.WilliamsE. L.MarchantD.SparksS. A.BridgeC. A.MidgleyA. W.McNaughtonL. R. (2016b). Improvements in cycling time trial performance are not sustained following the acute provision of challenging and deceptive feedback. Frontiers in Physiology, 7, 399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00399
29.
MarcoraS. (2009). Perception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs. Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(6), 2060–2062. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.90378.2008
30.
MarquezD. X.JeromeG. J.McAuleyE.SnookE. M.CanaklisovaS. (2002). Self-efficacy manipulation and state anxiety responses to exercise in low active women. Psychology and Health, 17(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044021000054782
31.
MaugerA. R.JonesA. M.WilliamsC. A. (2011). The effect of non-contingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time trial performance in 4-km track cycling. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(3), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.062844
McGibbonK. E.PyneD. B.ShephardM. E.ThompsonK. G. (2018). Pacing in swimming: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 48(7), 1621–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0901-9
34.
MicklewrightD.PapadopoulouE.SwartJ.NoakesT. (2010). Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(13), 952–960. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.057315
35.
MortonR. H. (2009). Deception by manipulating the clock calibration influences cycle ergometer endurance time in males. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(2), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2007.11.006
36.
MotlR. W.KonopackJ. F.HuL.McAuleyE. (2006). Does self-efficacy influence leg muscle pain during cycling exercise?The Journal of Pain, 7(5), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2005.11.009
37.
NikolopoulosV.ArkinstallM. J.HawleyJ. A. (2001). Pacing strategy in simulated cycle time- trials is based on perceived rather than actual distance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4(2), 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(01)80031-1
38.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
39.
ParryD.ChinnasamyC.MicklewrightD. (2012). Optic flow influences perceived exertion during cycling. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.4.444
40.
PatersonS.MarinoF. E. (2004). Effect of deception of distance on prolonged cycling performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3 Pt 1), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.3.1017-1026
41.
PatonC. D.HopkinsW. G. (2006). Ergometer error and biological variation in power output in a performance test with three cycle ergometers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 444–447. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-865781
42.
PiresF. O.HammondJ. (2012). Manipulation effects of prior exercise intensity feedback by the Borg scale during open-loop cycling. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.079053
43.
PuleoN. A.AbrahamK. A. (2018). External feedback does not affect running pace in recreational runners. International Journal of Exercise Science, 11(5), 384–390. https://doi.org/10.70252/OEEN8421
44.
SheiR. J.ThompsonK.ChapmanR.RaglinJ.MickleboroughT. (2016). Using deception to establish a reproducible improvement in 4-km cycling time trial performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(5), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1565139
45.
SmitsB. L.PolmanR. C.OttenB.PeppingG. J.HettingaF. J. (2016). Cycling in the absence of task-related feedback: Effects on pacing and performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 7, 348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00348
46.
SterneJ. A. C.SavovićJ.PageM. J.ElbersR. G.BlencoweN. S.BoutronI.CatesC. J.ChengH. Y.CorbettM. S.EldridgeS. M.EmbersonJ. R.HernánM. A.HopewellS.HróbjartssonA.JunqueiraD. R.JüniP.KirkhamJ. J.LassersonT.LiT.HigginsJ. P. T. (2019). RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
47.
StoateI.WulfG.LewthwaiteR. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Science, 30(8), 815–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.671533
48.
StoneM.ThomasK.WilkinsonM.JonesA.St Clair GibsonA.ThompsonK. (2012). Effects of deception on exercise performance: Implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44(3), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318232cf77
49.
StoneM. R.ThomasK.WilkinsonM.StevensonE.St Clair GibsonA.JonesA. M.ThompsonK. G. (2017). Exploring the performance reserve: Effect of different magnitudes of power output deception on 4,000 m cycling time-trial performance. PLoS One, 12(3), e0173120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173120
50.
TaylorD.SmithM. F. (2014). Effects of deceptive running speed on physiology, perceptual responses, and performance during sprint-distance triathlon. Physiology & Behavior, 133, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.002
51.
TaylorD.SmithM. F. (2017). 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 Physiology, 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00006
52.
TerraA.PaulucioD.MachadoM.BishopD. J.KochA. J.AlvarengaR.PompeuF. A. (2021). Effect of unaware clock manipulation on pacing strategy and performance in recreational athletes. Applied Sciences, 11(17), 8062. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11178062
53.
ThomasG.RenfreeA. (2010). The effect of secret clock manipulation on 10 km cycle time trial performance. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(9), 193–202.
54.
VieraA. J.GarrettJ. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.
55.
WaldronM.VilleriusV.MurphyA. (2014). Augmenting performance feedback does not affect 4 km cycling time-trials in the heat. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(8), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.962579
56.
WilliamsE. L.JonesH. S.Andy SparksS.MarchantD. C.MidgleyA. W.McNaughtonL. R. (2015). Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1 km cycling time trial performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(4), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.07.003
57.
WilliamsE. L.JonesH. S.SparksS. A.MarchantD. C.MidgleyA. W.BridgeC. A.McNaughtonL. R. (2016). Deceptive manipulation of competitive starting strategies influences subsequent pacing, physiological status, and perceptual responses during cycling time trials. Frontiers in Physiology, 7, 536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00536
58.
WilsonM. G.LaneA. M.BeedieC. J.FarooqA. (2012). Influence of accurate and inaccurate ‘split-time’ feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(1), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-1977-1
59.
WingfieldG.MarinoF. E.SkeinM. (2019). Deception of cycling distance on pacing strategies, perceptual responses, and neural activity. European Journal of Physiology, 471(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-018-2218-9
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
