Mid Sweden University

Previous authors have reported power-pedaling rate relationships for maximal cycling. However, the joint-specific power-pedaling rate relationships that contribute to pedal power have not been reported. We determined absolute and relative contributions of joint-specific powers to pedal power across a range of pedaling rates during maximal cycling. Ten cyclists performed maximal 3s cycling trials at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 rpm. Joint-specific powers were averaged over complete pedal cycles, and extension and flexion actions. Effects of pedaling rate on relative joint-specific power, velocity and excursion were assessed with regression analyses and repeated measures ANOVA. Relative ankle plantar flexion power (25 to 8%; p=0.01; R2=0.90) decreased with increasing pedaling rate whereas relative hip extension power (41 to 59%; p<0.01; R2=0.92) and knee flexion power (34 to 49%; p < 0.01; R2=0.94) increased with increasing pedaling rate. Knee extension powers did not differ across pedaling rates. Ankle joint angular excursion decreased with increasing pedaling rate (48 to 20º) whereas hip joint excursion increased (42 to 48º). These results demonstrate that the often reported quadratic power-pedaling rate relationship arise from combined effects of dissimilar joint-specific power-pedaling rate relationships. These dissimilar relationships are likely influenced by musculoskeletal constraints (i.e., muscle architecture, morphology) and/or motor control strategies.

Eccentric cycling serves a useful exercise modality in clinical, research, and sport training settings. However, several constraints can make it difficult to use commercially available eccentric cycle ergometers. In this technical note, we describe the process by which we built an isokinetic eccentric cycle ergometer using exercise equipment modified with commonly available industrial parts. Specifically, we started with a used recumbent cycle ergometer and removed all the original parts leaving only the frame and seat. A 2.2 kW electric motor was attached to a transmission system that was then joined with the ergometer. The motor was controlled using a variable frequency drive, which allowed for control of a wide range of pedaling rates. The ergometer was also equipped with a power measurement device that quantified work, power, and pedaling rate and provided feedback to the individual performing the exercise. With these parts along with some custom fabrication, we were able to construct an isokinetic eccentric cycle ergometer suitable for research and training. This paper offers a guide for those individuals who plan to use eccentric cycle ergometry as an exercise modality and wish to construct their own ergometer.

Several investigators have demonstrated that chronic eccentric leg cycling is an effective method for improving lower body neuromuscular function (e.g., quadriceps muscle size, strength, and mobility) in a variety of patient and athletic populations. To date, there are no reports of using eccentricarm cycling (ECarm) as an exercise modality, probably in large part because of the lack of commercially available ECarm ergometers. Purpose: Our purposes for conducting this study were to 1) describe the design and construction of an ECarm ergometer and 2) compare ECarm to traditional concentric arm cycling (CCarm). Methods: All of the parts of a Monark 891E cycle ergometer (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden) were removed, leaving the frame and flywheel. An electric motor (2.2 kW) was connected to the flywheel via a pulley and a belt. Motor speed and pedaling rate were controlled by a variable frequency drive. A power meter quantified power and pedaling rate, and provided feedback to the individual. Eight individuals performed 3-min ECarm and CCarm trials at 40, 80, and 120 W (60 rpm) while V̇O₂ was measured. Results: The ECarm ergometer was simple to use, was adjustable, provided feedback on power output to the user, and allowed for a range of eccentric powers. V̇O₂ during ECarm was substantially lower compared with CCarm (P < 0.001). At similar V̇O₂ (0.97 ± 0.18 vs 0.91 ± 0.09 L•min, for ECarm and CCarm, respectively, P = 0.26), power absorbed during ECarm was approximately threefold greater than that produced during CCarm (118 ± 1 vs 40 ± 1 W, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This novel ECarm ergometer can be used to perform repetitive, high-force, multijoint, eccentric actions with the upper body at a low level of metabolic demand and may allow researchers and clinicians to use ECarm as a training and rehabilitation modality. © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine.

INTRODUCTION:Eccentric leg cycling has served as an important research model for investigating multi-joint eccentric actions and as an effective rehabilitation and training modality for improving locomotor muscle function (e.g., quadriceps size, strength, mobility). While there are more than 30 reports documenting physiological responses to eccentric leg cycling, physiological responses to eccentric arm cycling (ECarm) have not been clearly established.

PURPOSE:We tested the hypothesis that ECarm could be performed with lower levels of metabolic and cardiorespiratory demand and perceived exertion compared to traditional concentric arm cycling (CCarm).

METHODS:Eight individuals performed ECarm and CCarm at 40, 80, and 120 W (~9 min, 60 rpm) while expired gases and muscle activation patterns were recorded.

RESULTS:Oxygen consumption, cardiac output, heart rate, and ventilation were 25-50 % lower during ECarm compared to CCarm (all P < 0.05). Further, only low-to-moderate levels of whole-body and arm-specific perceived exertion were required to perform ECarm which was not the case for CCarm (8-12 vs. 9-16 Borg values, both P < 0.05). Differences in oxygen consumption and total upper body muscle activity between ECarm and CCarm were strongly related (r (2) = 0.75, P < 0.01). Coordination of ECarm involved triceps brachii, deltoideus anterior, and external oblique muscles, whereas CCarm involved all of these muscles along with contributions from biceps brachii, deltoideus posterior, and trapezius transversalis.

CONCLUSIONS:These results highlight the high-force, low-cost nature of multi-joint eccentric actions and extend the application of eccentric cycling to the upper body. ECarm may be useful for exercising elbow, trunk, and shoulder musculature while minimizing metabolic and cardiorespiratory strain and perceived exertion.

Fatigue induced via a maximal isometric contraction of a single limb muscle group can evoke a "cross-over" of fatigue that reduces voluntary muscle activation and maximum isometric force in the rested contralateral homologous muscle group. We asked whether a cross-over of fatigue also occurs when fatigue is induced via high-intensity endurance exercise involving a substantial muscle mass. Specifically, we used high-intensity single-leg cycling to induce fatigue and evaluated associated effects on maximum cycling power (P max) in the fatigued ipsilateral leg (FATleg) as well as the rested contralateral leg (RESTleg). On separate days, 12 trained cyclists performed right leg P max trials before and again 30 s, 3, 5, and 10 min after a cycling time trial (TT, 10 min) performed either with their right or left leg. Fatigue was estimated by comparing exercise-induced changes in P max and maximum handgrip isometric force (F max). Mean power produced during the right and left leg TTs did not differ (203 ± 8 vs. 199 ± 8 W). Compared to pre-TT, FATleg P max was reduced by 22 ± 3 % at 30 s post-TT and remained reduced by 9 ± 2 % at 5 min post-TT (both P < 0.05). Despite considerable power loss in the FATleg, post-TT RESTleg P max (596–603 W) did not differ from pre-TT values (596 ± 35 W). There were no alterations in handgrip F max (529–547 N). Our data suggest that any potential cross-over of fatigue, if present at all, was not sufficient to measurably compromise RESTleg P max in trained cyclists. These results along with the lack of changes in handgrip F max indicate that impairments in maximal voluntary neuromuscular function were specific to working muscles.

ABSTRACT: Previous authors have reported reductions in maximum power after high-intensity cycling exercise. Exercise-induced changes in power produced by ankle, knee, and hip joint actions (joint-specific powers), however, have not been reported. PURPOSE: To evaluate joint-specific power production during a cycling time trial (TT) and also compare pre- to post-TT changes in maximal cycling (MAXcyc) joint-specific powers. METHODS: Ten cyclists performed MAXcyc trials (90rpm) before and after a 10min TT (28810W, 90rpm). Pedal forces and limb kinematics were determined with a force-sensing pedal and an instrumented spatial linkage, respectively. Joint-specific powers were calculated and averaged over complete pedal cycles and over extension and flexion phases. RESULTS: Pedal and joint-specific powers did not change during the TT. Pedal power produced during post-TT MAXcyc was reduced by 323% (P<0.001) relative to pre-TT. Relative changes in ankle plantar flexion (435%) and knee flexion powers (525%) were similar but were greater than changes in knee extension (124%) and hip extension powers (286%) (both P<0.05). Pedal and joint-specific powers produced during post-TT MAXcyc were greater than those powers produced during the final 3s of the TT (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Exercise-induced changes in MAXcyc power manifested with differential power loss at each joint action with ankle plantar flexion and knee flexion exhibiting relatively greater fatigue than knee extension and hip extension. However, changes in MAXcyc joint-specific powers were not presaged by changes in TT joint-specific powers. We conclude that fatigue induced via high-intensity cycling does not alter submaximal joint-specific powers but has distinct functional consequences for MAXcyc joint-specific powers

Previous authors have reported that chronic eccentric cycling facilitates greater changes in multi-joint leg function (hopping frequency, maximum jumping height) compared with concentric cycling. Our purpose was to evaluate changes in leg spring stiffness and maximum power following eccentric and concentric cycling training. Twelve individuals performed either eccentric (n=6) or concentric (n=6) cycling for 7 weeks (3 sessions/week) while training duration progressively increased. Participants performed trials of submaximal hopping, maximal counter movement jumps, and maximal concentric cycling to evaluate leg spring stiffness, maximum jumping power, and maximum concentric cycling power respectively, before and 1 week following training. Total work during training did not differ between eccentric and concentric cycling (126 ± 15–728 ± 91 kJ vs 125 ± 10–787 ± 76 kJ). Following training, eccentric cycling exhibited greater changes in kleg and jumping Pmax compared with CONcyc (10 ± 3% vs −2 ± 4% and 7 ± 2% vs −2 ± 3%, respectively, P=0.05). Alterations in CONcycPmax did not differ between ECCcyc (1035 ± 142 vs 1030 ± 133 W) and CONcyc (1072 ± 98 vs 1081 ± 85 W). These data demonstrate that eccentric cycling is an effective method for improving leg spring stiffness and maximum power during multi-joint tasks that include stretch-shortening cycles. Improvements in leg spring stiffness and maximum power would be beneficial for both aging and athletic populations.