Cycling Position Research Articles

Seated versus standing position for maximization of performance during intense uphill cycling

It is not known whether the seated or standing position favours performance during intensive bouts of uphill cycling. The following hypotheses were therefore tested: (1) the standing position results in better performance at a high power output, while (2) the seated position is best at a moderate power output. We also assessed the seated–standing transition intensity, above which seated cycling should be superseded by standing cycling for maximization of performance. Ten male cyclists (mean age 27 years, s = 3; height 1.82 m, s = 0.07; body mass 75.2 kg, s = 7.0; [Vdot]O2max 70.0 ml · kg−1 · min−1, s = 5.2) performed seated and standing treadmill cycling to exhaustion at 10% grade and at four power outputs ranging from 86% to 165% of their power output at maximal oxygen uptake (Wmax). Power output at maximal oxygen uptake was obtained during determination of [Vdot]O2max. There was no difference in time to exhaustion between the two cycling positions at 86% of Wmax (P = 0.29). All participants performed best at the highest power output (165% of Wmax) when standing (P = 0.002). An overall seated–standing transition intensity of 94% of Wmax was identified. Thus, in general, cyclists may choose either the standing or seated position for maximization of performance at a submaximal intensity of 86% of Wmax, while the standing position should be used at intensities above 94% of Wmax and approaching 165% of Wmax.

Impact of seated and standing bicycle riding position on subsequent running performance

This study examined the effects of cycling posture on subsequent running performance similar to the transition phase of a triathlon. Experienced, non-elite triathletes completed two trials of a cycle-run transition. During the last three minutes of a 30 minute cycling bout, at power output equal to lactate threshold, subjects either remained seated (SEAT), or alternated seated and standing cycling (30 s at a time; ALT). Heart rate, RPE, minimum and maximum knee angle, stride frequency and length, and onset and duration of quadriceps and hamstrings activity were obtained at the end of a three-minute control run and at minutes 0, 2, & 4, of running after cycling transition. Repeated Measures ANOVA (condition X minute; p = 0.05) found control was significantly different than minute 0 for stride frequency and length, but not for minimum or maximum knee angle. EMG duration at minute 4 was less than all other time points for both quadriceps and hamstrings. Onset of muscle activity was not different for hamstring or quadriceps. Heart rate and RPE both increased over 15 minutes after transition and were higher for SEAT than ALT, however, there was no interaction (minute by position) for either variable. Results indicated changes in stride rate and length following cycling occur, but disappear within two minutes after the transition to running and do not differ between postures. Changes in duration of muscle activity may be related to changes in stride. Also HR and RPE differ between the SEAT and ALT cycling positions and over time.

Effect of cycling position on oxygen uptake and preferred cadence in trained cyclists during hill climbing at various power outputs

Numerous researchers have studied the physiological responses to seated and standing cycling, but actual field data are sparse. One open issue is the preferred cadence of trained cyclists while hill climbing. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the affect of cycling position on economy and preferred cadence in trained cyclists while they climbed a moderate grade hill at various power outputs. Eight trained cyclists (25.8 +/- 7.2 years, [Formula: see text] 68.8 +/- 5.0 ml kg(-1) min(-1), peak power 407.6 +/- 69.0 W) completed a seated and standing hill climb at approximately 50, 65 and 75% of peak power output (PPO) in the order shown, although cycling position was randomized, i.e., half the cyclists stood or remained seat on their first trial at each power output. Cyclists also performed a maximal trial unrestricted by position. Heart rate, power output, and cadence were measured continuously with a power tap; ventilation [Formula: see text], BF and cadence were significantly higher with seated climbing at all intensities; there were no other physiological differences between the climbing positions. These data support the premise that trained cyclists are equally economical using high or low cadences, but may face a limit to benefits gained with increasing cadence.

Maximal ventilation and body size determine the oxygen cost of ventilation

The oxygen cost of ventilation (VO2VENT) exponentially increases as ventilation increases, especially from moderate to maximal rates. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to measure VO2VENT at maximal efforts using a relatively large number of subjects of different fitness levels, body sizes, and ages, and correlate subject characteristics (e.g., age, VO2max, body surface area (BSA), weight, height) with VO2VENT. We hypothesized that age and VO2max would correlate with VO2VENT at maximal exercise. METHODS 20 healthy, non-smoking male (n=18) and female (n=2) subjects (age: 21–43 yrs, VO2max: 2.2–7.0 l/min, weight: 50.8–113.6 kg) performed a cycle VO2max test and maximal ventilation (VEmax) was measured. Subjects mimicked their VEmax in a cycling posture while VO2VENT was measured. Since the VO2VENT data was not normally distributed, the log of VO2VENT was used as the dependent variable. Multiple regression was used to determine if subject characteristics could predict VO2VENT at maximal exercise. RESULTS BSA, body weight and mimicked VEmax were significantly correlated to VO2VENT, R2 = 0.797, F(2,17) = 30.843, SEE = −0.057, p < 0.001. The prediction equation indicated that BSA, body weight and mimicked VEmax were weighted the highest, the second and third highest, respectively, in predicting VO2VENT (Log of VO2VENT = 0.52037*(BSA) + 0.00096*(VEmax) – 0.00521*(Wt) – 1.12924). Age and VO2max were not significantly correlated to VO2VENT. CONCLUSION Although 79.7% of VO2VENT could be explained, the remaining unexplained between-subjects variability in VO2VENT warrants further research in this area.

Validity and Reliability of the PowerTap Mobile Cycling Powermeter when Compared with the SRM Device

The SRM power measuring crank system is nowadays a popular device for cycling power output (PO) measurements in the field and in laboratories. The PowerTap (CycleOps, Madison, USA) is a more recent and less well-known device that allows mobile PO measurements of cycling via the rear wheel hub. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the PowerTap by comparing it with the most accurate (i.e. the scientific model) of the SRM system. The validity of the PowerTap is tested during i) sub-maximal incremental intensities (ranging from 100 to 420 W) on a treadmill with different pedalling cadences (45 to 120 rpm) and cycling positions (standing and seated) on different grades, ii) a continuous sub-maximal intensity lasting 30 min, iii) a maximal intensity (8-s sprint), and iiii) real road cycling. The reliability is assessed by repeating ten times the sub-maximal incremental and continuous tests. The results show a good validity of the PowerTap during sub-maximal intensities between 100 and 450 W (mean PO difference -1.2 +/- 1.3 %) when it is compared to the scientific SRM model, but less validity for the maximal PO during sprint exercise, where the validity appears to depend on the gear ratio. The reliability of the PowerTap during the sub-maximal intensities is similar to the scientific SRM model (the coefficient of variation is respectively 0.9 to 2.9 % and 0.7 to 2.1 % for PowerTap and SRM). The PowerTap must be considered as a suitable device for PO measurements during sub-maximal real road cycling and in sub-maximal laboratory tests.

Lower Extremity Muscle Activation Differences Between Upright And Recumbent Cycling

Due to the recent increase in popularity of the recumbent cycling position, both the standard upright (U) and recumbent (R) positions are readily available choices for exercise and rehabilitation. However, the altered orientation of the lower extremity relative to the line of gravity in the R compared to the U may affect the way the muscles are used/trained. PURPOSE The goal of this investigation was to determine the differences in muscle activations between the U and R cycling positions at a submaximal power level appropriate for rehabilitation or prolonged exercise. METHODS After obtaining university-approved informed consent and appropriate warm-up, 15 healthy college-aged men (age = 21.7 +/− 1.0 yrs, height = 1.80 +/− 0.08 m, mass = 76.4 +/− 11.8 kg) with U and R cycling familiarity were examined while cycling steady-state at 60 rpm and 90 W in each position (random order of testing). Max hipto-pedal distance (105% of floor to standing hip distance) and included angle between shoulder, hip, and bottom bracket (130°) were matched. The hip was level with the bottom bracket in the R position and 75° to the horizontal in the U position. Bipolar surface electromyography was recorded at 1000Hz on the tibialis anterior (TA), soleus (SO), gastrocnemius (GA), vastus lateralis (VL) and medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), hamstrings (HM), and gluteus maximus (GM). Signals from three consecutive pedal revolutions were rectified and averaged within 10% bins of the pedal revolution starting at top-dead-center. In order to match kinematics, R signals were shifted by the 75° difference in hip orientation. Statistical significance was evaluated at p <0.05. RESULTS Activation levels changed significantly within the pedal revolution for all muscles in both the U and R positions. However, activation level profiles were significantly different in trend between the U and R for all muscles except the TA and HM. Differences were observed in the propulsion phase (0–50% of pedal cycle) for the SO, GA, VL, VM, RF, and GM and in the recovery phase (50–100% of pedal cycle) for all muscles except for the TA. When the activation within the pedal revolution was examined in its entirety, there was a significant increase in the U relative to the R in the HM and a significant decrease in the SO, GA, and RF. CONCLUSION Based on these observed differences in muscle activation levels, there may be reason to choose one cycling position over another when specific muscles are being targeted/avoided. Acknowledgements: This research was supported by a grant from the Colorado Injury Control Research Center.

Influence of Hip Orientation on Wingate Power Output and Cycling Technique

The effect of altered hip orientation angle ([HOA] angle of hip joint center to bottom bracket relative to horizontal) on Wingate anaerobic test results and cycling technique while maintaining a constant body configuration angle (included angle between torso, hip, and bottom bracket) and maximum hip-to-pedal distance was examined. Nineteen recreational cyclists, all men, with no recent recumbent cycling experience completed 30-second Wingate tests in 3 recumbent positions (HOA = -20°, -10°, and 0°) and the standard cycling position (SCP) (HOA = 75°). Peak, average, and minimum power output, as well as fatigue index, were not significantly different across all positions (p < 0.01). Average hip and knee extension angles increased slightly, and ankle angle did not change as HOA increased. These findings indicate that although HOA does have a small effect on cycling kinematics, these effects are not large enough to alter short-term power output. Therefore, anaerobic power output may be evaluated and compared in the recumbent positions and the SCP.

Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions.

This study was designed to examine the effects of cycling position (seated or standing) during level-ground and uphill cycling on gross external efficiency (GE) and economy (EC). Eight well-trained cyclists performed in a randomized order five trials of 6-min duration at 75% of peak power output either on a velodrome or during the ascent of a hill in seated or standing position. GE and EC were calculated by using the mechanical power output that was measured by crankset (SRM) and energy consumption by a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b(2)). In addition, each subject performed three 30-s maximal sprints on a laboratory-based cycle ergometer or in the field either in seated or standing position. GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 +/- 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 +/- 0.33 kJ x L(-1) (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly ( < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher ( < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher ( < 0.01) in standing (803 +/- 103 W) than in seated position (635 +/- 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 +/- 81 W). Gradient or body position appears to have a negligible effect on external efficiency in field-based high-intensity cycling exercise. Greater short-term power can be produced in standing position, presumably due to a greater force developed per revolution. However, the technical features of the standing position may be one of the most determining factors affecting the metabolic responses.

Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the effects of cycling position (seated or standing) during level-ground and uphill cycling on gross external efficiency (GE) and economy (EC). METHODS: Eight well-trained cyclists performed in a randomized order five trials of 6-min duration at 75% of peak power output either on a velodrome or during the ascent of a hill in seated or standing position. GE and EC were calculated by using the mechanical power output that was measured by crankset (SRM) and energy consumption by a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b(2)). In addition, each subject performed three 30-s maximal sprints on a laboratory-based cycle ergometer or in the field either in seated or standing position. RESULTS: GE and EC were, respectively, 22.4 +/- 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and 4.69 +/- 0.33 kJ x L(-1) (CV = 5.7%) and were not different between level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing conditions. Heart rate was significantly ( < 0.05) higher in standing position. In the uphill cycling trials, minute ventilation was higher ( < 0.05) in standing than in seated position. The average 30-s power output was higher ( < 0.01) in standing (803 +/- 103 W) than in seated position (635 +/- 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 +/- 81 W). CONCLUSION: Gradient or body position appears to have a negligible effect on external efficiency in field-based high-intensity cycling exercise. Greater short-term power can be produced in standing position, presumably due to a greater force developed per revolution. However, the technical features of the standing position may be one of the most determining factors affecting the metabolic responses.

Analysis of Recumbent Cycling Lower-Extremity Kinetics with Comparison to the Standard Cycling Position

Analysis of Recumbent Cycling Lower-Extremity Kinetics with Comparison to the Standard Cycling Position

Influence of Hip Orientation on Wingate Power Output and Cycling Technique

The effect of altered hip orientation angle ([HOA] angle of hip joint center to bottom bracket relative to horizontal) on Wingate anaerobic test results and cycling technique while maintaining a constant body configuration angle (included angle between torso, hip, and bottom bracket) and maximum hip-to-pedal distance was examined. Nineteen recreational cyclists, all men, with no recent recumbent cycling experience completed 30-second Wingate tests in 3 recumbent positions (HOA = -20 degrees, -10 degrees, and 0 degrees ) and the standard cycling position (SCP) (HOA = 75 degrees ). Peak, average, and minimum power output, as well as fatigue index, were not significantly different across all positions (p < 0.01). Average hip and knee extension angles increased slightly, and ankle angle did not change as HOA increased. These findings indicate that although HOA does have a small effect on cycling kinematics, these effects are not large enough to alter short-term power output. Therefore, anaerobic power output may be evaluated and compared in the recumbent positions and the SCP.

Anaerobic Cycling Power Output with Variations in Recumbent Body Configuration

While the recumbent cycling position has become common for high-performance human-powered vehicles, questions still remain as to the influence of familiarity on recumbent cycling, the optimal riding position, and how recumbent cycling positions compare to the standard cycling position (SCP). Eight recumbent-familiar cyclists and 10 recreational control cyclists were compared using the 30-s Wingate test in 5 recumbent positions as well as the SCP. For the recumbent positions, hip position was maintained 15° below the bottom bracket while the backrest was altered to investigate body configuration angle (BCA: the angle between the bottom bracket, hip, and a marker at mid-torso) changes from 100° to 140° in 10° increments. Between-groups analysis found that only 4 of the 126 analyzed parameters differed significantly, with all trends in the same direction. Therefore both groups were combined for further analysis. Whole-group peak power (14.6 W/kg body mass) and average power (9.9 and 9.8 W/kg body mass, respectively) were greatest in the 130° and 140° BCA positions, with power dropping off as BCA decreased through 100° (peak = 12.4 W/kg body mass; avg. = 9.0 W/kg body mass). Power output in the SCP (peak = 14.6 W/kg body mass; avg. = 9.7 W/kg body mass) was similar to that produced in the 130° and 140° recumbent BCA. Average hip and ankle angles increased (became more extended/ plantar-flexed), 36° and 10°, respectively, with recumbent BCA, while knee angles remained constant. The lower extremity kinematics of the 130° and 140° BCA were most similar to those of the SCP. However, SCP hip and knee joints were slightly extended and the ankle joint was slightly plantar-flexed compared to these two recumbent positions, even though the BCA of the SCP was not significantly different. These findings suggest: (a) the amount of recumbent familiarity in this study did not produce changes in power output or kinematics; (b) BCA is a major determinant of power output; and (c) recumbent-position anaerobic power output matches that of the SCP when BCA is maintained, even though lower extremity kinematics may be altered.

THE EFFECT OF CYCLING POSITION ON ECONOMY AND CADENCE DURING HILL CLIMBING AT VARIOUS POWER OUTPUTS

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to examine the effect of various power outputs and cycling positions have on cycling economy and cadence during hill climbing on the road. Methods: Thirteen trained cyclists reported to the laboratory for a VO2 max test. Subjects then completed seven hill climbing trials during a single test session. Trials were performed seated and standing at 50, 65, and 75% of max power output, followed by one maximal time trial (TT). During the last trial, subjects were allowed to change position as desired. Results: To date, 8 subjects have completed testing. Their mean VO2 max was 4.75 + 0.07 L.min-1, while maximal aerobic power output (MPO) was 407 + 61 W. Economy and cadence while standing were 77 + 4 W.L-1 and 57 + 3 rpm at 50% MPO, 81 + 2 W.L-1 and 62 + 2 rpm at 65% MPO, and 85 + 2 W.L-1 and 66 + 2 rpm at 75% MPO. Economy and cadence while sitting were 75 + 2 W.L.-1 and 75 + 2 rpm at 50% MPO, 80 + 1 W.L-1 and 81 + 2 rpm at 65% MPO, and 83 + 2 W.L-1 and 88 + 1 rpm at 75% MPO. During the maximal TT, economy and cadence were 99 + 3 W.L-1 and 78 + 3 rpm, respectively, and corresponded to 93.5 + 1.6% MPO. Conclusions: These data suggest that there are no differences in economy between seated and standing climbing, despite a significant difference in cadence.

Personal perspective: in search of an optimum cycling posture

Correct cycling posture improves performance and may prevent injuries. This article addresses the most important variables that determine cycling posture of road racing cyclists. It focuses not only on ‘posture height’ but also on ‘posture length’, an aspect that has as yet received little attention. In order to help cyclists find their optimum posture, reliable anthropometric measuring is of utmost importance. The relevant measurements and the necessary measuring instruments are considered. Special attention is given to gender related posture aspects.

Adaptation of the lumbar spine to different positions in bicycle racing.

A radiologic and electromyographic study was done of the adaptation of the lumbar spine to high-performance cycling. To evaluate changes in the lumbar spine produced by different cycling positions on different types of bicycles used during competition. Three professional cyclists were observed to evaluate changes in the lumbar spine. Radiographs were obtained of the different positions adopted by the cyclists during competition, and changes in the angles of the lumbar spine were measured. An electromyographic study was done of the abdominal, lumbar, and thoracic paravertebral muscles. The cyclists' positions involved a change from discal lordosis to kyphosis. To obtain a more aerodynamic position, the cyclists flexed the hip and made the pelvis horizontal without changing disc angles. The contraction of paravertebral lumbar muscles was proportional to pedalling intensity and decreased in more aerodynamic positions. The tone of the paravertebral thoracic muscles depended on the extent of cervical hyperextension. Abdominal muscles remained relaxed in all bicycle positions and with all pedalling intensities. The changes observed could modify the normal biomechanics of the lumbar spine, but the overall mechanical load on the spine is reduced by shifting weight onto the upper limbs. The imbalance that occurs between the activity of flexor and extensor muscles could cause lumbar pain in persons without proper physical preparation.

Physiologic Response to Upright and Forward Leaning Leg Cycle Ergometry in Subjects with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Preliminary Study

Cycle ergometry is commonly used in pulmonary rehabilitation programs for cardiorespiratory fitness training. Patient position during cycling exercise is generally not standardized, but could affect exercise response. The purpose of this study was to assess physiologic responses in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upright and forward leaning cycling exercise. Seven females and three males diagnosed with COPD volunteered to participate in this study. Patients performed a submaximal cycling exercise protocol. The patients were positioned with the trunk upright or inclined 45° forward during the submaximal cycling exercise protocol. The patient returned to the laboratory within 2-4 days and repeated the same submaximal exercise protocol as the first testing day, but seated in the other position. The order of cycling position was determined randomly with a card draw for the first subject and alternated thereafter. Physiologic parameters measured included heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (VE), tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen consumption (VO2), and the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen (VE/VO2). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also recorded during each minute of the submaximal exercise protocol. Data collected during the last minute of the steady state exercise was averaged and analyzed for between trial differences using a paired t-test. The RPE scores during the final minute of steady state exercise were analyzed using a Wilcoxon Signed RankTest. No significant differences were found between upright and forward inclined submaximal cycling for any of the parameters analyzed.

Effects of Handlebar Position on Physiological Responses to Prolonged Cycling

The physiological responses of two cycling postures were evaluated in 8 trained male cyclists. Each cyclist performed two random-order cycle ergometer trails, one in an aerodynamic position (AP) and the other in a conventional drop position (DP). Each trial lasted 60 min and was performed at a power output calculated to elicit 70% of max O2 while pedaling at 90 rev · min−1. Oxygen cost, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were measured every 10 min throughout each trial. Cycling in the AP yielded a consistently lower diastolic blood pressure response. Cycling in the DP yielded lower heart rate and oxygen costs. These results suggest that changes in body position due to the use of different handlebars can significantly influence the physiological cost of cycling. Since body position influences physiological responses, each cyclist should be tested in the laboratory in his or her race position, with modification if necessary, so that an accurate training program can be developed.

Lower Extremity Kinetics in Elite Athletes in Aerodynamic Cycling Positions

Lower Extremity Kinetics in Elite Athletes in Aerodynamic Cycling Positions

The influence of body position on maximal performance in cycling

Six healthy male subjects performed a 3-min supramaximal test in four different cycling positions: two with different trunk angles and two with different saddle-tube angles. Maximal power output and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) were measured. Maximal power output was significantly higher in a standard sitting (SS, 381 W, SD 49) upright position compared to all other positions: standard racing (SR, 364 W, SD 49), recumbent backwards (RB, 355 W, SD 44) and recumbent forwards (RF, 341 W, SD 54). Although VO2max was also highest in SS (4.31 l.min-1, SD 0.5) upright position, the differences in VO2max were not significant (SR, 4.2 l.min-1, SD 0.53; RB, 4.17 l.min-1, SD 0.58; RF, 4.11 l.min-1, SD 0.66). It is concluded that (supra)maximal tests on a cycle ergometer should be performed in a sitting upright position and not in a racing position. In some cases when cycling on the road, higher speeds can be attained when sitting upright. This is especially true when cycling uphill when high power must be generated to overcome gravity but the road speed, and hence the power required to overcome air resistance, is relatively low.

Experiments in Human Ergometry as Applied to the Design of Human Powered Vehicles

A comparison of six methods of measuring maximal human power output is given. The methods are as follows: the standard bicycle ergometer and modified bicycle ergometer (revised so that a standard racing bicycle and a higher applied torque could be used); a bicycle ridden on a treadmill; an unbraked flywheel bicycle ergometer; power using bicycle wind and rolling resistance measurements; running up stairs with weights; and running up a ramp with weights. Power output was. measured for time periods varying from less than 1 sec to 20 min. Power from the different methods agreed quite well. Example data are given for leg exercise, arm and leg exercise, and cycling in the prone, supine, and standard cycling positions.