» Articles » PMID: 15657767

The Generalized Force-velocity Relationship Explains Why the Preferred Pedaling Rate of Cyclists Exceeds the Most Efficient One

Overview
Specialty Physiology
Date 2005 Jan 20
PMID 15657767
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The most efficient pedaling rate (lowest oxygen consumption) at a workload of 50-300 W has been reported to be in the range of 42-60 rpm. By contrast, most competitive cyclists prefer a pedaling rate of more than 90 rpm. The reason for this difference is still unknown. We assume that the high pedaling rate preferred by cyclists can be explained by the inherent properties of muscle fibers. To obtain statements which do not depend on muscle's cross-section and length, we generalized Hill's characteristic equations where muscle force and heat liberation are related to shortening velocity. A pedaling rate of f (etamax) yields to maximal efficiency, whereas the higher pedaling rate f (Pmax) leads to maximal power. The ratio f (Pmax)/f (etamax) between these two pedaling rates ranges from 1.7 to 2.4, and it depends on the muscle's fiber-type composition. In sprints and competitions of very short duration, f (Pmax) is more advantageous because energy supply is not the predominant limiting factor. The price to be paid for the most powerful pedaling rate is lower efficiency and higher energy cost. In longer exercises, economy is more important and the optimal pedaling rate shifts toward f (etamax). We conclude that the optimal pedaling rate, representing the fastest race performance, is not fixed but depends on race duration; it ranges between f (etamax) and f (Pmax). Our results are not only of interest for competitive cyclists but also for investigations using cycle ergometers: maximum power might not be reached by using a pedaling rate near the most efficient one.

Citing Articles

A Novel Approach to the Determination of Time- and Fatigue-Dependent Efficiency during Maximal Cycling Sprints.

Dunst A, Hesse C, Ueberschar O, Holmberg H Sports (Basel). 2023; 11(2).

PMID: 36828314 PMC: 9959921. DOI: 10.3390/sports11020029.


A critical review of critical power.

Dotan R Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022; 122(7):1559-1588.

PMID: 35303159 DOI: 10.1007/s00421-022-04922-6.


Exercise Performance and Corticospinal Excitability during Action Observation.

Wrightson J, Twomey R, Smeeton N Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10:106.

PMID: 27014037 PMC: 4792875. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00106.


Muscle coordination limits efficiency and power output of human limb movement under a wide range of mechanical demands.

Blake O, Wakeling J J Neurophysiol. 2015; 114(6):3283-95.

PMID: 26445873 PMC: 4686283. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00765.2015.


Influence of road incline and body position on power-cadence relationship in endurance cycling.

Emanuele U, Denoth J Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 112(7):2433-41.

PMID: 22045414 DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-2213-8.


References
1.
Williams P, Goldspink G . Changes in sarcomere length and physiological properties in immobilized muscle. J Anat. 1978; 127(Pt 3):459-68. PMC: 1235732. View

2.
Gotshall R, Bauer T, Fahrner S . Cycling cadence alters exercise hemodynamics. Int J Sports Med. 1996; 17(1):17-21. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-972802. View

3.
Sargeant A . Human power output and muscle fatigue. Int J Sports Med. 1994; 15(3):116-21. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1021031. View

4.
WILKIE D . Thermodynamics and the interpretation of biological heat measurements. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1960; 10:259-98. View

5.
Baron R . Aerobic and anaerobic power characteristics of off-road cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001; 33(8):1387-93. DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200108000-00022. View