Sports Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 12, pp 1243–1257 | Cite as

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Deception on Pacing Strategy and Performance: A Review

  • Hollie S. Jones
  • Emily L. Williams
  • Craig A. Bridge
  • Dave Marchant
  • Adrian W. Midgley
  • Dominic Micklewright
  • Lars R. Mc Naughton
Review Article


The aim of an optimal pacing strategy during exercise is to enhance performance whilst ensuring physiological limits are not surpassed, which has been shown to result in a metabolic reserve at the end of the exercise. There has been debate surrounding the theoretical models that have been proposed to explain how pace is regulated, with more recent research investigating a central control of exercise regulation. Deception has recently emerged as a common, practical approach to manipulate key variables during exercise. There are a number of ways in which deception interventions have been designed, each intending to gain particular insights into pacing behaviour and performance. Deception methodologies can be conceptualised according to a number of dimensions such as deception timing (prior to or during exercise), presentation frequency (blind, discontinuous or continuous) and type of deception (performance, biofeedback or environmental feedback). However, research evidence on the effects of deception has been perplexing and the use of complex designs and varied methodologies makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about how pacing strategy and performance are affected by deception. This review examines existing research in the area of deception and pacing strategies, and provides a critical appraisal of the different methodological approaches used to date. It is hoped that this analysis will inform the direction and methodology of future investigations in this area by addressing the mechanisms through which deception impacts upon performance and by elucidating the potential application of deception techniques in training and competitive settings.


Completion Time Pace Strategy External Feedback Untrained Participant Great Power Output 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to thank colleagues who gave their support during the writing of this review and for their feedback on the original draft of the document. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review and the author has no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV. From catastrophe to complexity: a novel model of integrative central neural regulation of effort and fatigue during exercise in humans: summary and conclusions. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(2):120–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A. Logical limitations to the “catastrophe” models of fatigue during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:648–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Evidence for complex system integration and dynamic neural regulation of skeletal muscle recruitment during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(6):797–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swart J, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI, et al. Exercising with reserve: exercise regulation by perceived exertion in relation to duration of exercise and knowledge of endpoint. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(10):775–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hampson DB, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert MI, et al. The influence of sensory cues on the perception of exertion during exercise and central regulation of exercise performance. Sports Med. 2001;31(13):935–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parry D, Chinnasamy C, Micklewright D. Optic flow influences perceived exertion during cycling. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;34(4):444–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rauch HGL, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV, et al. A signalling role for muscle glycogen in the regulation of pace during prolonged exercise. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(1):34–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ansley L, Robson PJ, St Clair Gibson A, et al. Anticipatory pacing strategies during supramaximal exercise lasting longer than 30s. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(2):309–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paterson S, Marino FE. Effect of deception of distance on prolonged cycling performance. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98:1017–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Micklewright D, Papadopoulou E, Swart J, et al. Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(13):952–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corbett J, Barwood MJ, Ouzounoglou A, et al. Influence of competition on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(3):509–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, et al. Effects of deception on exercise performance: implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(3):534–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faulkner J, Arnold T, Eston RG. Effect of accurate and inaccurate distance feedback on performance markers and pacing strategies during running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):176–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tucker R, Noakes TD. The physiological regulation of pacing strategy during exercise: a critical review. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV, Rauch LHG, et al. The role of information processing between the brain and peripheral physiological systems in pacing and perception of effort. Sports Med. 2006;36(8):706–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ulmer HV. Concept of an extracellular regulation of muscular metabolic rate during heavy exercise in humans by psychophysiological feedback. Experientia. 1996;52(5):416–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambert EV, St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Complex systems model of fatigue: integrative homoeostatic control of peripheral physiological systems during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(1):52–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16(1):55–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    St Clair Gibson A, Baden DA, Lambert MI, et al. The conscious perception of the sensation of fatigue. Sports Med. 2003;33(3):167–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tucker R. The anticipatory regulation of performance: the physiological basis for pacing strategies and the development of a perception-based model for exercise performance. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(6):392–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eston RG, Faulkner J, St Clair Gibson A, et al. The effect of antecedent fatiguing activity on the relationship between perceived exertion and physiological activity during a constant load exercise task. Psychophysiology. 2007;44(5):779–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faulkner J, Eston RG. Perceived exertion research in the 21st century: developments, reflections and questions for the future. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2008;6(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joseph T, Johnson B, Battista RA, et al. Perception of fatigue during simulated competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(2):381–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Noakes TD. Linear relationship between the perception of effort and the duration of constant load exercise that remains. J Appl Physiol. 2004;96(4):1571–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noakes TD. Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis. Front Physiol. 2012;3(82):1–13.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noakes TD. Time to move beyond a brainless exercise physiology: the evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36(1):23–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crewe H, Tucker R, Noakes TD. The rate of increase in rating of perceived exertion predicts the duration of exercise to fatigue at a fixed power output in different environmental conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;103(5):569–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Albertus Y, Tucker R, St Clair Gibson A, et al. Effect of distance feedback on pacing strategy and perceived exertion during cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(3):461–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    St Clair Gibson A, Schabort EJ, Noakes TD. Reduced neuromuscular activity and force generation during prolonged cycling. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2001;281:187–96.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Swart J, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI, et al. Exercising with reserve: evidence that the central nervous system regulates prolonged exercise performance. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(10):782–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morton RH. Deception by manipulating the clock calibration influences cycle ergometer endurance time in males. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12(2):332–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nikolopoulos V, Arkinstall MJ, Hawley JA. Pacing strategy in simulated cycle time-trials is based on perceived rather than actual distance. J Sci Med Sport. 2001;4(2):212–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williamson JW, McColl R, Mathews D, et al. Hypnotic manipulation of effort sense during dynamic exercise: cardiovascular responses and brain activation. J Appl Physiol. 2001;90(4):1392–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barwood MJ, Weston NJV, Thelwell R, et al. A motivational music and video intervention improves high-intensity exercise performance. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(1):435–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beedie CJ, Foad AJ. The placebo effect in sports performance: a brief review. Sports Med. 2009;39(4):313–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hutchinson JC, Sherman T, Martinovic N, et al. The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2008;20(4):457–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lohse KR, Sherwood DE. Defining the focus of attention: effects of attention on perceived exertion and fatigue. Front Physiol. 2011;2(332):1–10.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAuley E, Talbot HM, Martinez S. Manipulating self-efficacy in the exercise environment in women: influences on affective responses. Health Psychol. 1999;18(3):288–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kalasountas V, Reed J, Fitzpatrick J. The effect of placebo-induced changes in expectancies on maximal force production in college students. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2007;19(1):116–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barwood MJ, Corbett J, White D, et al. Early change in thermal perception is not a driver of anticipatory exercise pacing in the heat. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):936–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Amann M, Proctor LT, Sebranek JJ, et al. Opioid-mediated muscle afferents inhibit central motor drive and limit peripheral muscle fatigue development in humans. J Physiol. 2009;587(1):271–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. Influence of acetaminophen on performance during time trial cycling. J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(1):98–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eston RG, Stansfield R, Westoby P, et al. Effect of deception and expected exercise duration on psychological and physiological variables during treadmill running and cycling. Psychophysiology. 2012;49(4):462–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Billaut F, Bishop DJ, Schaerz S, et al. Influence of knowledge of sprint number on pacing during repeated-sprint exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(4):665–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baden DA, McLean TL, Tucker R, et al. Effect of anticipation during unknown or unexpected exercise duration on rating of perceived exertion, affect, and physiological function. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(10):742–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. Influence of feedback and prior experience on pacing during a 4-km cycle time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(2):451–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Williams CA, Bailey SD, Mauger AR. External exercise information provides no immediate additional performance benefit to untrained individuals in time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):49–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Palmer GS, Backx K, Hawley JA. Perceived rather than actual distance determines pacing strategy during simulated cycling time trials. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pires FO, Hammond J. Manipulation effects of prior exercise intensity feedback by the Borg scale during open-loop cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(1):18–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hampson DB, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert MI, et al. Deception and perceived exertion during high-intensity running bouts. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98:1027–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Beedie CJ, Lane AM, Wilson MG. A possible role for emotion and emotion regulation in physiological responses to false performance feedback in 10 mile laboratory cycling. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2012;30:1–9.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wilson MG, Lane AM, Beedie CJ, et al. Influence of accurate and inaccurate “split-time” feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(1):231–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hopkins WG, Hewson DJ. Variability of competitive performance of distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(9):1588–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, et al. Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: willpower is more than a metaphor. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92(2):325–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Muraven M, Baumeister RF. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):247–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. The effect of non-contingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time trial performance in 4-km track cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(3):225–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, et al. Consistency of perceptual and metabolic responses to a laboratory-based simulated 4,000-m cycling time trial. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(8):1807–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thomas G, Renfree A. The effect of secret clock manipulation on 10 km cycle time. Int J Arts Sci. 2010;3(9):193–202.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Castle PC, Maxwell N, Allchorn A, et al. Deception of ambient and body core temperature improves self paced cycling in hot, humid conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(1):377–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marquez DX, Jerome GJ, McAuley E, et al. Self-efficacy manipulation and state anxiety responses to exercise in low active women. Psychol Health. 2002;17(6):783–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Motl RW, Konopack JF, Hu L, et al. Does self-efficacy influence leg muscle pain during cycling exercise? J Pain. 2006;7(5):301–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hu L, Motl RW, McAuley E, et al. Effects of self-efficacy on physical activity enjoyment in college-aged women. Int J Behav Med. 2007;14(2):92–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hall EE, Ekkekakis P, Petruzzello SJ. Is the relationship of RPE to psychological factors intensity-dependent? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(8):1365–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stoate I, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(8):37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    British Psychological Society. Code of human research ethics; 2010. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
  67. 67.
    Department of Health. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects; 2008. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
  68. 68.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research; 1979. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
  69. 69.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Nuremberg code; 1949. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hollie S. Jones
    • 1
  • Emily L. Williams
    • 1
  • Craig A. Bridge
    • 1
  • Dave Marchant
    • 1
  • Adrian W. Midgley
    • 1
  • Dominic Micklewright
    • 2
  • Lars R. Mc Naughton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sport and Physical ActivityEdge Hill UniversityLancashireUK
  2. 2.University of EssexColchester, EssexUK

Personalised recommendations