4. Discussion
LBP, pain
This study aimed to describe and analyze the evolution of LBPP in recreational cyclists who practice road and mountain biking. Increased detected LBBP was greater than 2 points, which is considered clinically relevant [Regarding PPT, participants reported a decrease after completing the TT, but this change was statistically significant only for the RC condition. Although the difference in MTB was not statistically significant, the trend is like RC, which, besides the ES found, indicates a change in the response pattern. Since cyclists seem to be acclimatized to some degree of discomfort even in healthy conditions, so they continue to participate regardless of pain [The present study also showed how six participants presented three or more FDs. According to Monticone et al. (2012) [We have yet to find published comparative studies on the evolution of LBPP among mountain and road cyclists. Therefore, we cannot compare our results with those of other authors. Nevertheless, the hypothesis of this study expected to find differences in the change produced on LBP between the practice of RC and MTB, since both modalities present differences in posture [Moreover, Dahlquist et al., 2015 [Another hypothesis that can be explored in the future is the role of the myofascial system. It interpenetrates and surrounds all organs, muscles, bones, and nerve fibers, creating a unique environment for body systems’ functioning [Some limitations should be considered in the present study. First, to evaluate the differences between modalities, there were no specific road and mountain cyclists, which does not allow us to assess whether the cyclists’ muscles have different adaptations typical of each modality. Second, to evaluate the PPT, it was necessary to calculate the average of the results observed on the left and right sides. This could mask possible differences between the evolution of the left and right sides. As regards strengths, this is the first study that compares the development of LBP among mountain and road cyclists. As an intra-subject study, it allows the outcomes (LBP and the PPT) to be more stable. Both interventions were spaced a week apart to eliminate the influence of the previous intervention. Our data indicated no carryover effect between the baseline results of LBBP and PPT.Moreover, the ecological design of our research, which used real situations, such as own bicycles with own bike fitting of the participants and the interventions being carried out outdoors, led to a greater external validity. Finally, the intensity training session was adjusted through an individualized HR range, and each participant completed the TT alone to avoid the effect of restricting effort due to the shielding effect of any other front cyclist. Another adopted procedure to ensure the control of interventions was the recordings of RPE. Our results indicated no differences among interventions, so we can assume that intensity was similar in both interventions.