Literature DB >> 17622283

The effects of cadence and power output upon physiological and biomechanical responses to incremental arm-crank ergometry.

Michael J Price1, Lee Collins, Paul M Smith, Mark Goss-Sampson.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of cadence and power output on physiological and biomechanical responses to incremental arm-crank ergometry (ACE). Ten male subjects (mean +/- SD age, 30.4 +/-5.4 y; height, 1.78 +/-0.07 m; mass, 86.1 +/-14.2 kg) undertook 3 incremental ACE protocols to determine peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak; mean of 3 tests: 3.07 +/- 0.17 L.min-1) at randomly assigned cadences of 50, 70, or 90 r.min-1. Heart rate and expired air were continually monitored. Central (RPE-C) and local (RPE-L) ratings of perceived exertion were recorded at volitional exhaustion. Joint angles and trunk rotation were analysed during each exercise stage. During submaximal power outputs of 50, 70, and 90 W, oxygen consumption (VO2) was lowest for 50 r.min-1 and highest for 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.01). VO2 peak was lowest during 50 r.min-1 (2.79 +/-0.45 L.min-1; p < 0.05) when compared with both 70 r.min-1 and 90 r.min-1 (3.16 +/-0.58, 3.24 +/-0.49 L.min-1, respectively; p > 0.05). The difference between RPE-L and RPE-C at volitional exhaustion was greatest during 50 r.min-1 (2.9 +/- 1.6) when compared with 90 r.min-1 (0.9 +/- 1.9, p < 0.05). At VO2 peak, shoulder range of motion (ROM) and trunk rotation were greater for 50 and 70 r.min-1 when compared with 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.05). During submaximal power outputs, shoulder angle and trunk rotation were greatest at 50 r.min-1 when compared with 90 r.min-1 (p < 0.05). VO2 was inversely related to both trunk rotation and shoulder ROM during submaximal power outputs. The results of this study suggest that the greater forces required at lower cadences to produce a given power output resulted in greater joint angles and range of shoulder and trunk movement. Greater isometric contractions for torso stabilization and increased cost of breathing possibly from respiratory-locomotor coupling may have contributed increased oxygen consumption at higher cadences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17622283     DOI: 10.1139/H07-052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab        ISSN: 1715-5312            Impact factor:   2.665


  8 in total

1.  Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent.

Authors:  E J Lockyer; R J Benson; A P Hynes; L R Alcock; A J Spence; D C Button; K E Power
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Arm vs. Combined Leg and Arm Exercise: Blood Pressure Responses and Ratings of Perceived Exertion at the Same Indirectly Determined Heart Rate.

Authors:  Andrea Di Blasio; Andrea Sablone; Paola Civino; Emanuele D'Angelo; Sabina Gallina; Patrizio Ripari
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Sensory enhancement of warm-up amplifies subsequent grip strength and cycling performance.

Authors:  Benjamin M Nazaroff; Gregory E P Pearcey; Bridget Munro; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Biomechanics of handcycling propulsion in a 30-min continuous load test at lactate threshold: Kinetics, kinematics, and muscular activity in able-bodied participants.

Authors:  Oliver J Quittmann; Thomas Abel; Kirsten Albracht; Joshua Meskemper; Tina Foitschik; Heiko K Strüder
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Effect of cadence on locomotor-respiratory coupling during upper-body exercise.

Authors:  Nicholas B Tiller; Mike J Price; Ian G Campbell; Lee M Romer
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants.

Authors:  Riemer J K Vegter; Barry S Mason; Bastiaan Sporrel; Benjamin Stone; Lucas H V van der Woude; Vicky L Goosey-Tolfrey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Corticospinal-Evoked Responses from the Biceps Brachii during Arm Cycling across Multiple Power Outputs.

Authors:  Evan J Lockyer; Katarina Hosel; Anna P Nippard; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2019-08-19

8.  Optimal and freely chosen paddling rate during moderate kayak ergometry.

Authors:  Søren Gam; Kent K Klitgaard; Anders B Funch; Markus E Sloth; Jesper W Holt; Jakob L Molbech; Ernst A Hansen
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 2.806

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.