Effects of rider position on continuous wave Doppler responses to maximal cycle ergometry

Effect of different aerodynamic time trial cycling positions on muscle activation and crank torque

To reduce air resistance, time trial cyclists and triathletes lower their torso angle. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of lowering time trial torso angle positions on muscle activation patterns and crank torque coordination. It was hypothesized that small torso angles yield a forward shift of the muscle activation timing and crank torque. Twenty-one trained cyclists performed three exercise bouts at 70% maximal aerobic power in a time trial position at three different torso angles (0°, 8°, and 16°) at a fixed cadence of 85 rpm. Measurements included surface electromyography, crank torques and gas exchange. A significant increase in crank torque range and forward shift in peak torque timing was found at smaller torso angles. This relates closely with the later onset and duration of the muscle activation found in the gluteus maximus muscle. Torso angle effects were only observed in proximal monoarticular muscles. Moreover, all measured physiological variables (oxygen consumption, breathing frequency, minute ventilation) were significantly increased with lowering torso angle and hence decreased the gross efficiency. The findings provide support for the notion that at a cycling intensity of 70% maximal aerobic power, the aerodynamic gains outweigh the physiological/biomechanical disadvantages in trained cyclists.

The effect of time trial cycling position on physiological and aerodynamic variables

To reduce aerodynamic resistance cyclists lower their torso angle, concurrently reducing Peak Power Output (PPO). However, realistic torso angle changes in the range used by time trial cyclists have not yet been examined. Therefore the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of torso angle on physiological parameters and frontal area in different commonly used time trial positions. Nineteen well-trained male cyclists performed incremental tests on a cycle ergometer at five different torso angles: their preferred torso angle and at 0, 8, 16 and 24°. Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide expiration, minute ventilation, gross efficiency, PPO, heart rate, cadence and frontal area were recorded. The frontal area provides an estimate of the aerodynamic drag. Overall, results showed that lower torso angles attenuated performance. Maximal values of all variables, attained in the incremental test, decreased with lower torso angles (P < 0.001). The 0° torso angle position significantly affected the metabolic and physiological variables compared to all other investigated positions. At constant submaximal intensities of 60, 70 and 80% PPO, all variables significantly increased with increasing intensity (P < 0.0001) and decreasing torso angle (P < 0.005). This study shows that for trained cyclists there should be a trade-off between the aerodynamic drag and physiological functioning.

Identification of a Vo2 deflection point coinciding with the heart rate deflection point and ventilatory threshold in cycling

The purposes of this study were to compare the patterns of the work rate (WR)-Vo2 and WR-heart rate (HR) relationships in incremental cycling, to ascertain the occurrence of a Vo2 deflection (Vo2def) coinciding with the HR deflection point (HRdef ), and to determine whether the Vo2def, if present, coincides with the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VT). Twenty-four professional cyclists performed a maximal incremental test on a wind-load cycle ergometer. Work rate, HR, Vo2, and Vco2 were recorded. The WR-Vo2 relationships obtained were linear up to submaximal WR and curvilinear thereafter and thus described a Vo2def. The WR and Vo2 at Vo2def were mathematically determined for all subjects. The ratio of DeltaWR.DeltaVo2 up to Vo2def was significantly lower than that above Vo2def (90 +/- 11 W.L.min versus 133 +/- 35 W.L.min, p < 0.0001). The WR-HR relationships obtained were linear up to submaximal WR and curvilinear thereafter. The WR and HR at HRdef were mathematically determined for all subjects. The WR values at Vo2def and at HRdef (329 +/- 32 W and 326 +/- 34 W) were significantly correlated (R = 0.96, p < 0.0001) and in good concordance (limits of agreement from -4.7% to 3.2%, Bland-Altman analysis). The Vo2 at VT was then determined for all subjects. The Vo2 values at Vo2def and at VT were significantly correlated (R = 0.99, p < 0.0001) and in strong concordance (limits of agreement from -1.9% to 1.0%, Bland-Altman analysis). In conclusion, a Vo2def coinciding with HRdef and VT was shown. This confirms that the determination of the WR-HR relationship and of HRdef is a practical and noninvasive means of identifying anaerobic threshold.

Comparison of upright and semi-recumbent postures for exercise echocardiography in healthy children

This study was conducted in 20 healthy children to compare a semi-recumbent posture using back support with an upright posture for exercise echocardiography. It was found that a semi-recumbent position with back support is superior to an upright position, with no difference in physiologic measurements.

Body position affects performance in untrained cyclists

OBJECTIVE

To compare cardiovascular and ventilatory variables in upright versus aero cycle ergometry at submaximal and maximal exercise intensities in untrained cyclists.

METHOD

Ten physically active men (mean (SD) age 19.1 (1.10) years) who were unfamiliar with aerobars underwent maximal exercise testing and steady state cycling at 50, 100, and 150 W.

RESULTS

Participants had significantly greater maxima for oxygen uptake (VO2), ventilation, heart rate, and workload maximum in the upright position. During steady state cycling at the three workloads, VO2 (ml/kg/min) and gross mechanical efficiency were significantly greater in the upright position.

CONCLUSIONS

In untrained subjects performing with maximal effort, the upright position permits greater VO2, ventilation, heart rate, and workload maxima. Further, in the steady state, exercise cycling may be less costly in the upright position. For this reason, untrained cyclists need to weigh body position effects against the well known aerodynamic advantages of the aero position.