Asher H Straw1, Wouter Hoogkamer2, Rodger Kram2. 1. Department of Integrative Physiology, Locomotion Lab, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA. asher.straw@colorado.edu. 2. Department of Integrative Physiology, Locomotion Lab, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Historically, the efficiency of leg cycling has been difficult to change. However, arm cycling research indicates that relative crank angle changes can improve efficiency. Therefore, we investigated if leg cycling with different relative crank angles affects efficiency. METHODS: Ten healthy, male, recreational bicycle riders (27.8 ± 8.2 years, mean ± SD, mass 69.8 ± 3.2 kg) pedaled a pan-loaded cycle ergometer at a fixed power output of 150 watts at a cadence of 90 RPM. Each subject completed six, 5-min trials in random order at relative crank angles of 180°, 135°, 90°, 45°, 0°, and 180°. We averaged rates of oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) and carbon dioxide production ([Formula: see text]), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) for the last 2 min of each trial. RESULTS: Crank angles other than 180° required a greater metabolic cost. As relative crank angle decreased from 180°, metabolic power monotonically increased by 1.6% at 135° to 8.2% greater when the relative crank angle was 0° (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We find that, unlike arm cycling, radically changing the relative crank angle on a bicycle from an out-of-phase (180°) to in-phase (0°) position decreases leg cycling efficiency by ~8%. We attribute the increase to changes in cost of breathing, muscle co-activation, trunk stabilization, power fluctuations, and possibly lifting the legs during the upstroke. Our findings may have relevance in the rehabilitation of patients recovering from stroke or spinal cord injury.
PURPOSE: Historically, the efficiency of leg cycling has been difficult to change. However, arm cycling research indicates that relative crank angle changes can improve efficiency. Therefore, we investigated if leg cycling with different relative crank angles affects efficiency. METHODS: Ten healthy, male, recreational bicycle riders (27.8 ± 8.2 years, mean ± SD, mass 69.8 ± 3.2 kg) pedaled a pan-loaded cycle ergometer at a fixed power output of 150 watts at a cadence of 90 RPM. Each subject completed six, 5-min trials in random order at relative crank angles of 180°, 135°, 90°, 45°, 0°, and 180°. We averaged rates of oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) and carbon dioxide production ([Formula: see text]), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) for the last 2 min of each trial. RESULTS: Crank angles other than 180° required a greater metabolic cost. As relative crank angle decreased from 180°, metabolic power monotonically increased by 1.6% at 135° to 8.2% greater when the relative crank angle was 0° (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We find that, unlike arm cycling, radically changing the relative crank angle on a bicycle from an out-of-phase (180°) to in-phase (0°) position decreases leg cycling efficiency by ~8%. We attribute the increase to changes in cost of breathing, muscle co-activation, trunk stabilization, power fluctuations, and possibly lifting the legs during the upstroke. Our findings may have relevance in the rehabilitation of patients recovering from stroke or spinal cord injury.