Power output, cadence, and torque are similar between the forward standing and traditional sprint cycling positions

Using Inertial Measurement Units to Examine Selected Joint Kinematics in a Road Cycling Sprint: A Series of Single Cases

Sprinting plays a significant role in determining the results of road cycling races worldwide. However, currently, there is a lack of systematic research into the kinematics of sprint cycling, especially in an outdoor, environmentally valid setting. This study aimed to describe selected joint kinematics during a cycling sprint outdoors. Three participants were recorded sprinting over 60 meters in both standing and seated sprinting positions on an outdoor course with a baseline condition of seated cycling at 20 km/h. The participants were recorded using array-based inertial measurement units to collect joint excursions of the upper and lower limbs including the trunk. A high-rate GPS unit was used to record velocity during each recorded condition. Kinematic data were analyzed in a similar fashion to running gait, where multiple pedal strokes were identified, delineated, and averaged to form a representative (average ± SD) waveform. Participants maintained stable kinematics in most joints studied during the baseline condition, but variations in ranges of movement were recorded during seated and standing sprinting. Discernable patterns started to emerge for several kinematic profiles during standing sprinting. Alternate sprinting strategies emerged between participants and bilateral asymmetries were also recorded in the individuals tested. This approach to studying road cycling holds substantial potential for researchers wishing to explore this sport.

Field- and Laboratory-derived Power-Cadence Profiles in World-Class and Elite Track Sprint Cyclists

Previous investigations comparing Torque-Cadence (T-C) and Power-Cadence (P-C) profiles derived from seated and standing positions and field and laboratory conditions are not congruent with current methodological recommendations. Consequently, the aim of this investigation was to compare seated and standing T-C and P-C profiles generated from field and laboratory testing. Thirteen world-class and elite track sprint cyclists (n = 7 males, maximal power output (Pmax) = 2112 ± 395 W; n = 6 females, Pmax = 1223 ± 102 W) completed two testing sessions in which field- and laboratory-derived T-C and P-C profiles were identified. Standing P-C profiles had significantly (p < 0.05) greater Pmax than seated profiles, however there were no significant differences in optimal cadence (Fopt) between seated and standing positions. Pmax and Fopt were significantly lower in field-derived profiles in both positions compared to laboratory-derived profiles. However, there was no significant difference in the goodness-of-fit (R2) of the P-C profiles between laboratory (0.985 ± 0.02) and field-testing (0.982 ± 0.02) in each position. Valid T-C and P-C profiles can be constructed from field and laboratory protocols; however, the mechanical variables derived from the seated and standing and field and laboratory profiles cannot be used interchangeably. Both field and laboratory-derived profiles provide meaningful information and provide complementary insights into cyclists' capacity to produce power output.

Photobiomodulation does not improve anaerobic performance in well-trained cyclists

To determine if photobiomodulation (PBM) has ergogenic effects on the anaerobic performance of well-trained cyclists. Fifteen healthy male road or mountain bike cyclists participated in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Athletes were randomly assigned to receive photobiomodulation (630 nm, 4.6 J/cm², 6 J per point, 16 points, PBM session) or placebo intervention (PLA session) in the first session. The athletes then performed a 30-s Wingate test to determine mean and peak average power, relative power, mean and peak velocity, mean and peak RPM, fatigue index, total distance, time to peak power, explosive strength, and power drop. After 48 h, athletes returned to the laboratory for the crossover intervention. The repeated-measures ANOVA test followed by Bonferroni post hoc test or Friedman test with Dunn's post hoc test (p < 0.05), and Cohen's d statistic were used for comparisons. Performance in the Wingate test was not significantly different (p > 0.05) between PBM and PLA sessions for any variable. Only a small effect size was detected for time to peak power (-0.40; 1.11 to 0.31) and explosive strength (0.38; -0.34 to 1.09). We conclude that irradiation with red light, under a low energy density, does not promote ergogenic effects on the anaerobic performance of cycling athletes.

Effect of Acute Self-Myofascial Release on Pain and Exercise Performance for Cycling Club Members with Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome

Cycling is a popular sport, and the cycling population and prevalence of related injuries and diseases increase simultaneously. Iliotibial band friction syndrome is a common chronic overuse injury caused by repetitive knee use in cycling. Self-myofascial release using foam rollers is an effective intervention for this syndrome; however, studies reporting positive results on self-myofascial release in cycling are limited. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of self-myofascial release on pain and iliotibial band flexibility, heart rate, and exercise performance (cadence, power, and record) in adult male cyclists with iliotibial band friction syndrome. We evaluated the pain and exercise ability of the control (n = 11) and self-myofascial release (n = 11) groups before and after cycling twice. Significant differences were observed in the pain scale, the iliotibial band flexibility, and cycling pain and power. The posterior cadence of the self-myofascial release group was 3.2% higher than that of the control group. The control group's record time increased by 74.64 s in the second cycling session compared to the first cycling session, while that of the self-myofascial release group decreased by 30.91 s in the second cycling session compared to the first cycling session. Self-myofascial release is effective in relieving pain and may improve cycling performance by increasing the iliotibial band flexibility.

Kinematics of Backward Standing Starts in Elite Cyclists: The Effect of Initial Crank Angle

Purpose: In modern sprint cycling competitions, the athletes perform a preparatory movement that consists in reaching the backmost standing position, quickly accelerating the body forward at the starting signal. The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinematics of backward standing starts in elite cyclists, as well as the effect of initial crank angle. Methods: Video analysis of cycling starts was performed in seven male elite cyclists during 30 m sprints and in 3 starting conditions: seated with a self-selected crank angle (S-ss), backward standing from a self-selected (BSt-ss) or imposed crank angle of 90° (BSt-90°). Average velocity after 5 and 30 m was also measured by means of a photocell system. Results: No differences in starting crank angle were observed between BSt-ss and S-ss (about 64°). The fastest starts were attained in BSt-ss (highest velocity at 5 and 30 m); in this condition, angular downstroke velocity was the highest and the counter movement occurred earlier than in BSt-90°. Significant positive associations were observed between angular velocity in the first downstroke and forward velocity at 5 and 30 m. Conclusions: These findings indicate that backward standing starts improve cycling performance (compared to seated starts), that an initial crank angle < 90° is preferable, and that elite cyclists maintain the initial advantage at least up to a distance of 30 m.

The influence of bicycle lean on maximal power output during sprint cycling

Competitive cyclists typically sprint out of the saddle and alternately lean their bikes from side to side, away from the downstroke pedal. Yet, there is no direct evidence as to whether leaning the bicycle or conversely, attempting to minimize lean, affects maximal power output during sprint cycling. Here, we modified a cycling ergometer so that it can lean from side to side but can also be locked to prevent lean. This modified ergometer made it possible to compare maximal 1-s crank power during non-seated, sprint cycling under three different conditions: locked (no lean), ad libitum lean, and minimal lean. We found that leaning the ergometer ad libitum did not enhance maximal 1-s crank power compared to the locked condition. However, trying to minimize ergometer lean decreased maximal 1-s crank power by an average of 5% compared to leaning ad libitum. IMU-derived measures of ergometer lean provided evidence that subjects leaned the ergometer away from the downstroke pedal during the ad-lib condition, as in overground cycling. This finding suggests that our ergometer provides a suitable emulation of bicycle-lean dynamics. Overall, we find that leaning a cycle ergometer ad libitum does not enhance maximal power output, but conversely, trying to minimize lean impairs maximal power output.

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

Kinematic analysis of the cycling position is a determining factor in injury prevention and optimal performance. Fatigue caused by high volume training can alter the kinematics of the lower body and spinal structures, thus increasing the risk of chronic injury. However, very few studies have established relationships between fatigue and postural change, being these in 2D analysis or incremental intensity protocols. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a 3D kinematic analysis of pedaling technique in a stable power fatigue protocol 23 amateur cyclists (28.3 ± 8.4 years) participated in this study. For this purpose, 3D kinematics in hip, knee, ankle, and lumbar joints, and thorax and pelvis were collected at three separate times during the protocol. Kinematic differences at the beginning, middle, and end of the protocol were analyzed for all joints using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in all the joints studied, but not all of them occur in the same planes or the same phase of the cycle. Some of the changes produced, such as greater lumbar and thoracic flexion, greater thoracic and pelvic tilt, or greater hip adduction, could lead to chronic knee and lumbar injuries. Therefore, bike fitting protocols should be carried out in fatigue situations to detect risk factor situations.

Sprint Tactics in the Tour de France: A Case Study of a World-Class Sprinter (Part II)

PURPOSE

To describe the performance and tactical sprint characteristics of a world-class sprinter competing in the Tour de France. In addition, differences in the sprint tactics of 2 teams and won versus lost sprints are highlighted.

METHOD

Power output (PO) and video footage of 21 sprints were analyzed. Position in the peloton and number of teammates supporting the sprinter at different times before the finish line together with PO for different time intervals were determined. Sprints were classified as team Shimano (2013-2014) and team Quick-step (2016-2017), as well as won or lost.

RESULTS

The sprinter was highly successful, winning 14 out of the 21 sprints. At time intervals 10 to 5, 3 to 2, and 1.5 to 1 minute, POs were significantly lower in team Quick-step compared with team Shimano, but the sprinter was positioned further away from the front at 10, 2, 1.5, 1, and 0.5 minutes at team Quick-step compared with team Shimano. The PO was higher at time interval 0.5 to 0.25 minutes before the finish line with team Quick-step when compared with team Shimano. The position of the sprinter in the peloton in lost sprints was further away from the front at 0.5 minutes before the finish compared with won sprints, while no differences were noted for PO and the number of teammates between won and lost sprints.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in sprint tactics (Shimano vs Quick-step) influence the PO and position in the peloton during the sprint preparation. In addition, the position at 0.5 minutes before the finish line influences the outcome (won or lost) of the sprint.

Cycling Biomechanics and Its Relationship to Performance

State-of-the-art biomechanical laboratories provide a range of tools that allow precise measurements of kinematic, kinetic, motor and physiologic characteristics. Force sensors, motion capture devices and electromyographic recording measure the forces exerted at the pedal, saddle, and handlebar and the joint torques created by muscle activity. These techniques make it possible to obtain a detailed biomechanical analysis of cycling movements. However, despite the reasonable accuracy of such measures, cycling performance remains difficult to fully explain. There is an increasing demand by professionals and amateurs for various biomechanical assessment services. Most of the difficulties in understanding the link between biomechanics and performance arise because of the constraints imposed by the bicycle, human physiology and musculo-skeletal system. Recent studies have also pointed out the importance of evaluating not only output parameters, such as power output, but also intrinsic factors, such as the cyclist coordination. In this narrative review, we present various techniques allowing the assessment of a cyclist at a biomechanical level, together with elements of interpretation, and we show that it is not easy to determine whether a certain technique is optimal or not.