# The Effects of a Simulated Duathlon on Trunk Motion: A Sensor Based Approach
## 3 Results
### Comparison of Running Pre- and Post-Cycling  
The athletes' average times for the final 2.5 km in \(\mathrm{Run_{\mathrm{Prior}}}\) and for the 2.5 km in \(\mathrm{Run_{\mathrm{Post}}}\) were 4.03:05 (\(\pm\)0.018) and 4.08:16 (\(\pm\)0.024), respectively (in \(\mathrm{mmss}\)). The 2.5 km in \(\mathrm{Run_{\mathrm{Post}}}\) displayed slower performance times, which may have been influenced by prior cycling (Figure 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Running Distance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Running Pace (km/h1)** \\ \end{tabular} } & x (G) & \(p\) & y (G) & \(p\) & z (G) & \(p\) & **Resultant Vector** \\ \hline Kilometre 1 & 4.06 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.05 & 1.69 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.38 & 6 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Kilometre 2 & 4.05 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 3.25 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 5.11 \(\pm\) 1.19 & 6 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Kilometre 3 & 4.08 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 3.28 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 1.81 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 6.44 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 7 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \(500\) m \(\
eq\) & 4.09 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 1.80 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 7.20 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Kilometre 4 \(\
eq\) & 4.09 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.1 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 3.32 \(\pm\) 0.8 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 1.76 \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 7.19 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 7 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ Kilometre 5 \(\
eq\) & 4.09 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.8 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 3.33 \(\pm\) 0.8 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 7.72 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 8 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Ten duathletes (n = 10) running prior to cycling (\(\mathrm{Run_{\mathrm{Prior}}}\)) in a simulated duathlon with mediolateral (x), vertical (y), and anteroposterior (z) acceleration magnitude. RPE = ratings of perceived exertion. ** \(p<\) 0.01. \(\
eq\) Represents 2.5 km used for analysis. In gravitational acceleration (G). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Distance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cadence (rev/min^{1})** \\ \end{tabular} } & x (G) & \(p\) & y (G) & \(p\) & z (G) & \(p\) & RPE & **Resultant Vector** \\ \hline
**Transition (T1)** & & & & & & & 0.05 & 6 \(\pm\) 0.2 & - \\
1.23 (mmss) \(\pm\) 0.4 & & & & & & & & & \\ Kilometre 0–5 & Self-selected & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 6 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ Kilometre 5–10 & 55–60 \(\mathrm{rev/min^{1}}\) & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.05 & 7 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.11 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ Kilometre 10–15 & 75–80 \(\mathrm{rev/min^{1}}\) & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.05 & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.05 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 9 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 5.79 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ Kilometre 15–20 & 75–80 \(\mathrm{rev/min^{1}}\) & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.8 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.6 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.3 & \(<\)0.01 ** & 10 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 6.51 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Ten duathletes (n = 10) cycling distance and cadence per 5 km lap with mediolateral (x), vertical (y), and anteroposterior (z) acceleration magnitude. ** \(p<\) 0.01. T1 = the first transition marked the transition from \(\mathrm{Run_{\mathrm{Prior}}}\) to the cycle segment. In gravitational acceleration (G). Significant differences were observed in trunk acceleration, that is, the combined mediolateral, vertical, and anteroposterior motion in the final 2.5 km during Run\({}_{\text{Prior}}\) against the 2.5 km during Run\({}_{\text{Post}}\) (\(p\) = 0.0093). Analysis revealed that the athletes' largest variance occurred in the mediolateral direction (x axis) as the athletes displayed a greater magnitude, that is, their trunks experienced greater acceleration, during the initial 1 km of running post-cycling.