» Articles » PMID: 26783692

Three-dimensional Kinematics of Competitive and Recreational Cyclists Across Different Workloads During Cycling

Overview
Journal Eur J Sport Sci
Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology
Date 2016 Jan 20
PMID 26783692
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although the link between sagittal plane motion and exercise intensity has been highlighted, no study assessed if different workloads lead to changes in three-dimensional cycling kinematics. This study compared three-dimensional joint and segment kinematics between competitive and recreational road cyclists across different workloads. Twenty-four road male cyclists (12 competitive and 12 recreational) underwent an incremental workload test to determine aerobic peak power output. In a following session, cyclists performed four trials at sub-maximal workloads (65, 75, 85 and 95% of their aerobic peak power output) at 90 rpm of pedalling cadence. Mean hip adduction, thigh rotation, shank rotation, pelvis inclination (latero-lateral and anterior-posterior), spine inclination and rotation were computed at the power section of the crank cycle (12 o'clock to 6 o'clock crank positions) using three-dimensional kinematics. Greater lateral spine inclination (p < .01, 5-16%, effect sizes = 0.09-0.25) and larger spine rotation (p < .01, 16-29%, effect sizes = 0.31-0.70) were observed for recreational cyclists than competitive cyclists across workload trials. No differences in segment and joint angles were observed from changes in workload with significant individual effects on spine inclination (p < .01). No workload effects were found in segment angles but differences, although small, existed when comparing competitive road to recreational cyclists. When conducting assessment of joint and segment motions, workload between 65 and 95% of individual cyclists' peak power output could be used.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Dynamic Spinal Morphology and Core Muscle Activation in Cyclists-A Comparison between Standing Posture and on the Bicycle.

Muyor J, Antequera-Vique J, Oliva-Lozano J, Arrabal-Campos F Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(23).

PMID: 36502048 PMC: 9738255. DOI: 10.3390/s22239346.


Cycling kinematics in healthy adults for musculoskeletal rehabilitation guidance.

Yum H, Kim H, Lee T, Park M, Lee S BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1):1044.

PMID: 34911507 PMC: 8675512. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04905-2.


Discomfort, pain and fatigue levels of 160 cyclists after a kinematic bike-fitting method: an experimental study.

Scoz R, Amorim C, Espindola T, Santiago M, Baltazar Mendes J, Rui de Oliveira P BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021; 7(3):e001096.

PMID: 34540268 PMC: 8407214. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001096.


Changes in the Trunk and Lower Extremity Kinematics Due to Fatigue Can Predispose to Chronic Injuries in Cycling.

Galindo-Martinez A, Lopez-Valenciano A, Albaladejo-Garcia C, Valles-Gonzalez J, Elvira J Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(7).

PMID: 33918282 PMC: 8038191. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073719.


Impact of Power Output on Muscle Activation and 3D Kinematics During an Incremental Test to Exhaustion in Professional Cyclists.

Pouliquen C, Nicolas G, Bideau B, Bideau N Front Sports Act Living. 2021; 2:516911.

PMID: 33778484 PMC: 7988189. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2020.516911.