Familiarisation to maximal recumbent eccentric cycling

Reliability and Variability of Lower Limb Muscle Activation as Indicators of Familiarity to Submaximal Eccentric Cycling

Submaximal eccentric (ECC) cycling exercise is commonly used in research studies. No previous study has specified the required time naïve participants take to familiarize with submaximal ECC cycling. Therefore, we designed this study to determine whether critical indicators of cycling reliability and variability stabilize during 15 min of submaximal, semi-recumbent ECC cycling (ECC cycling). Twenty-two participants, aged between 18–51 years, volunteered to complete a single experimental session. Each participant completed three peak eccentric torque protocol (PETP) tests, nine countermovement jumps and 15 min of submaximal (i.e., 10% peak power output produced during the PETP tests) ECC cycling. Muscle activation patterns were recorded from six muscles (rectus femoris, RF; vastus lateralis, VL; vastus medialis, VM; soleus, SOL; medial gastrocnemius, GM; tibialis anterior, TA), during prescribed-intensity ECC cycling, using electromyography (EMG). Minute-to-minute changes in the reliability and variability of EMG patterns were examined using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and variance ratios (VR). Differences between target and actual power output were also used as an indicator of familiarization. Activation patterns for 4/6 muscles (RF, VL, VM and GM) became more consistent over the session, the RF, VL and VM increasing from moderate (ICC = 0.5–0.75) to good (ICC = 0.75–0.9) reliability by the 11th minute of cycling and the GM good reliability from the 1st minute (ICC = 0.79, ICC range = 0.70–0.88). Low variability (VR ≤ 0.40) was maintained for VL, VM and GM from the 8th, 8th and 1st minutes, respectively. We also observed a significant decrease in the difference between actual and target power output (χ214 = 30.895, p = 0.006, W = 0.105), expressed primarily between the 2nd and 3rd minute of cycling (Z = -2.677, p = 0.007). Indicators of familiarization during ECC cycling, including deviations from target power output levels and the reliability and variability of muscle activation patterns stabilized within 15 min of cycling. Based upon this data, it would be reasonable for future studies to allocate ∼ 15 min to familiarize naïve participants with a submaximal ECC cycling protocol.

Greater decrements in neuromuscular function following interval compared to continuous eccentric cycling

Our aim was to determine the demands and consequences of a single session of continuous (CONT) or interval (INT) eccentric cycling. Fourteen healthy males performed 'work-matched' CONT and INT eccentric cycling in a cross over design. Measures of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), resting twitch force, voluntary activation (VA), muscle soreness and creatine kinase (CK) were taken at baseline, immediately post, and 24, 48 and 72 h post the first exercise bout. The second bout was used to characterise within session demands. Decreases in MVC (INT 19%, CONT 13%), twitch force (INT 31%, CONT 18%), and VA (INT 10%, CONT 6%) were observed immediately post session (p < 0.05). Reductions in twitch force were greater after INT (p < 0.05) and lasted 48 h. Muscle soreness was greater following INT, versus CONT (p < 0.05), although no differences in CK were observed. Metabolic demands (% of V̇O_2peak and [BLa]) were greater during INT vs. CONT (32 ± 6% 28 ± 6%; p < 0.001), [BLa] (1.0 ± 0.4 vs. 0.8 ± 0.2 mmol·L^-1; p < 0.001) and RPE (12 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 1; p < 0.001), respectively. Total time under tension was 48% greater in CONT compared to INT (p < 0.001), whereas average torque (during exercise) was 40% greater during INT compared to CONT (p < 0.001). Interval eccentric cycling exacerbates muscle soreness, decrements in muscle function and lengthens recovery compared to a work matched continuous bout, which is attributable to increased force rather than time under tension.

Moving forward with backward pedaling: a review on eccentric cycling

PURPOSE

There is a profound gap in the understanding of the eccentric cycling intensity continuum, which prevents accurate exercise prescription based on desired physiological responses. This may underestimate the applicability of eccentric cycling for different training purposes. Thus, we aimed to summarize recent research findings and screen for possible new approaches in the prescription and investigation of eccentric cycling.

METHOD

A search for the most relevant and state-of-the-art literature on eccentric cycling was conducted on the PubMed database. Literature from reference lists was also included when relevant.

RESULTS

Transversal studies present comparisons between physiological responses to eccentric and concentric cycling, performed at the same absolute power output or metabolic load. Longitudinal studies evaluate responses to eccentric cycling training by comparing them with concentric cycling and resistance training outcomes. Only one study investigated maximal eccentric cycling capacity and there are no investigations on physiological thresholds and/or exercise intensity domains during eccentric cycling. No study investigated different protocols of eccentric cycling training and the chronic effects of different load configurations.

CONCLUSION

Describing physiological responses to eccentric cycling based on its maximal exercise capacity may be a better way to understand it. The available evidence indicates that clinical populations may benefit from improvements in aerobic power/capacity, exercise tolerance, strength and muscle mass, while healthy and trained individuals may require different eccentric cycling training approaches to benefit from similar improvements. There is limited evidence regarding the mechanisms of acute physiological and chronic adaptive responses to eccentric cycling.

Leg Muscle Activity and Perception of Effort before and after Four Short Sessions of Submaximal Eccentric Cycling

Background: This study tested muscle activity (EMG) and perception of effort in eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) cycling before and after four sessions of both. Methods: Twelve volunteers naïve to ECC cycling attended the laboratory six times. On day 1, they performed a CON cycling peak power output (PPO) test. They then carried-out four sessions comprising two sets of 1 to 1.5-min cycling bouts at 5 intensities (30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% PPO) in ECC and CON cycling. On day 2 and day 6 (two weeks apart), EMG root mean square of the vastus lateralis (VL), rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), and soleus (SOL) muscles, was averaged from 15 to 30 s within each 1-min bout and perception of effort was asked after 45 s. Results: Before the four cycling sessions, while VL EMG was lower in ECC than CON cycling, most variables were not different. Afterwards, ECC cycling exhibited lower RF EMG at 75 and 90% PPO (all p < 0.02), lower VL and BF EMG at all exercise intensities (all p < 0.02), and inferior SOL EMG (all p < 0.04) except at 45% PPO (p = 0.07). Perception of effort was lower in ECC cycling at all exercise intensities (all p < 0.03) but 60% PPO (p = 0.11). Conclusions: After four short sessions of ECC cycling, the activity of four leg muscles and perception of effort became lower in ECC than in CON cycling at most of five power outputs, while they were similar before.

Torque, power and muscle activation of eccentric and concentric isokinetic cycling

This study aimed to establish the effect of cycling mode and cadence on torque, external power output, and lower limb muscle activation during maximal, recumbent, isokinetic cycling. After familiarisation, twelve healthy males completed 6 × 10 s of maximal eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) cycling at 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 120 rpm with five minutes recovery. Vastus lateralis, medial gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, and biceps femoris surface electromyography was recorded throughout. As cadence increased, peak torque linearly decreased during ECC (350-248 N·m) and CON (239-117 N·m) and peak power increased in a parabolic manner. Crank angle at peak torque increased with cadence in CON (+13°) and decreased in ECC (-9.0°). At all cadences, peak torque (mean +129 N·m, range 111-143 N·m), and power (mean +871 W, range 181-1406 W), were greater during ECC compared to CON. For all recorded muscles the crank angle at peak muscle activation was greater during ECC compared to CON. This difference increased with cadence in all muscles except the vastus lateralis. Additionally, peak vastus laterallis and biceps femoris activation was greater during CON compared to ECC. Eccentric cycling offers a greater mechanical stimulus compared to concentric cycling but the effect of cadence is similar between modalities. Markers of technique (muscle activation, crank angle at peak activation and torque) were different between eccentric and concentric cycling and respond differently to changes in cadence. Such data should be considered when comparing between, and selecting cadences for, recumbent, isokinetic, eccentric and concentric cycling.