Although the link between sagittal plane motion and exercise intensity has been highlighted, no study assessed if different workloads lead to changes in three-dimensional cycling kinematics. This study compared three-dimensional joint and segment kinematics between competitive and recreational road cyclists across different workloads. Twenty-four road male cyclists (12 competitive and 12 recreational) underwent an incremental workload test to determine aerobic peak power output. In a following session, cyclists performed four trials at sub-maximal workloads (65, 75, 85 and 95% of their aerobic peak power output) at 90 rpm of pedalling cadence. Mean hip adduction, thigh rotation, shank rotation, pelvis inclination (latero-lateral and anterior-posterior), spine inclination and rotation were computed at the power section of the crank cycle (12 o'clock to 6 o'clock crank positions) using three-dimensional kinematics. Greater lateral spine inclination (p < .01, 5-16%, effect sizes = 0.09-0.25) and larger spine rotation (p < .01, 16-29%, effect sizes = 0.31-0.70) were observed for recreational cyclists than competitive cyclists across workload trials. No differences in segment and joint angles were observed from changes in workload with significant individual effects on spine inclination (p < .01). No workload effects were found in segment angles but differences, although small, existed when comparing competitive road to recreational cyclists. When conducting assessment of joint and segment motions, workload between 65 and 95% of individual cyclists' peak power output could be used.

Objective: There is a common belief that seat pressure during cycling can compress specific neurovascular tissues over the perineum leading to genital pathologies. This topic has seldom been discussed for women. The present study was conducted to verify the effect of trunk position and saddle design on saddle pressure in both men and women. Methods: Recreational cyclists (11 men and 11 women) were evaluated while seated on a bicycle. Saddle pressure was measured with F-scan insoles adapted for two saddle models (with and without a hole), and two trunk positions (upright and forwards). Pressure values were compared between trunk positions and saddles employing ANOVA. Results: There were no statistical differences comparing saddle pressure between the two trunk positions for women. For men a statistical difference between the trunk positions for the saddle with a hole was found. Thus, the trunk forwards shift seems to affect the values of saddle pressure only for men using the ‘holed’ saddle. Conclusion: Saddle pressure for men was influenced by saddle design and trunk position only. This result indicates that the masculine anatomy may influence saddle pressure during bicycle.

Introduction Seat pressure during cycling and its relationship to urological disorders have been discussed extensively in recently published literature. The effects of exercise configuration on seat pressure, however, still have not been fully investigated. Aim This study evaluates the effects of two different pedaling workloads and two saddle designs on saddle pressure in 22 (11 men and 11 women) recreational cyclists (bicycling &lt;2 hours per week). Methods Seat pressure was measured in the saddle surface while pedaling at workloads of 150 and 300 W using a plain and a holed saddle model, both without any gel cushion characteristics. Analysis of variance was applied to compare seat pressure between situations. Main Outcome Measure Study the importance of bicycle saddle pressure. Results Mean seat pressure was not different between men and women. For the plain saddle, the men’s average seat pressure increased as the workload increased. Using a holed saddle, the mean pressure increased as the workload increased, regardless of gender. Conclusions The increase of workload increased the seat pressure for the subjects, with the main effects dependent on workload. The use of a holed saddle was not directly related to lesser seat pressure during cycling. Our results support our understanding of a similarity between genders related to mean seat pressure, and suggest that different workload ranges may present different results for seat pressure.

This study investigated the three-dimensional (3-D) pedaling kinematics using a noncircular chainring system and a conventional system. Five cyclists pedaled at their preferred cadence at a workload of 300 W using two crank systems. Flexion/extension of the hip, knee and ankle as well as shank rotation, foot adduction/abduction, and pedal angle were measured. Joint range of motion (ROM) and angular displacements were compared between the systems. Sagittal plane ROM was significantly greater (P < 0.05) at the hip (noncircular system = 39 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 34 +/- 4 degrees) the knee (noncircular system = 69 +/- 4 degrees; conventional system = 57 +/- 10 degrees), and ankle (noncircular system = 21 +/- 2 degrees; conventional system = 19 +/- 4 degrees) resulting in greater pedal ROM (noncircular system = 43 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 37 +/- 5 degrees) while using the noncircular system. Shank rotation ROM was significantly lower (P < 0.05) while using the noncircular chainring (noncircular system = 10 +/- 1 degree; conventional system = 14 +/- 1 degree). These results support a significant effect of the noncircular chainring system on pedaling kinematics during submaximal exercise.

No abstract