Incorrect bicycle configuration may predispose athletes to injury and reduce their cycling performance. There is disagreement within scientific and coaching communities regarding optimal configuration of bicycles for athletes. This review summarizes literature on methods for determining bicycle saddle height and the effects of bicycle saddle height on measures of cycling performance and lower limb injury risk. Peer-reviewed journals, books, theses and conference proceedings published since 1960 were searched using MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, EBSCO and Google Scholar databases, resulting in 62 references being reviewed. Keywords searched included 'body positioning', 'saddle', 'posture, 'cycling' and 'injury'. The review revealed that methods for determining optimal saddle height are varied and not well established, and have been based on relationships between saddle height and lower limb length (Hamley and Thomas, trochanteric length, length from ischial tuberosity to floor, LeMond, heel methods) or a reference range of knee joint flexion. There is limited information on the effects of saddle height on lower limb injury risk (lower limb kinematics, knee joint forces and moments and muscle mechanics), but more information on the effects of saddle height on cycling performance (performance time, energy expenditure/oxygen uptake, power output, pedal force application). Increasing saddle height can cause increased shortening of the vastii muscle group, but no change in hamstring length. Length and velocity of contraction in the soleus seems to be more affected by saddle height than that in the gastrocnemius. The majority of evidence suggested that a 5% change in saddle height affected knee joint kinematics by 35% and moments by 16%. Patellofemoral compressive force seems to be inversely related to saddle height but the effects on tibiofemoral forces are uncertain. Changes of less than 4% in trochanteric length do not seem to affect injury risk or performance. The main limitations from the reported studies are that different methods have been employed for determining saddle height, small sample sizes have been used, cyclists with low levels of expertise have mostly been evaluated and different outcome variables have been measured. Given that the occurrence of overuse knee joint pain is 50% in cyclists, future studies may focus on how saddle height can be optimized to improve cycling performance and reduce knee joint forces to reduce lower limb injury risk. On the basis of the conflicting evidence on the effects of saddle height changes on performance and lower limb injury risk in cycling, we suggest the saddle height may be set using the knee flexion angle method (25-30°) to reduce the risk of knee injuries and to minimize oxygen uptake.

Achilles tendon material properties already improved after 4 weeks of high-load training: stiffness increased while CSA remained unchanged. Tendon hypertrophy (increased CSA) was observed after 8 training weeks and contributed to a further increase in Achilles tendon stiffness, but tendon stiffness increases were mostly caused by adaptations in tissue properties.

No abstract

This study investigated the effects of changing cadence and workload on pedaling technique. Eight cyclists were evaluated during an incremental maximal cycling and two 30-minute submaximal trials at 60% and 80% of maximal power output (W(60%) and W(80%), respectively). During submaximal 30-minute trials, they cycled for 10 minutes at a freely chosen cadence (FCC), 10 minutes at a cadence 20% above FCC (FCC+20%), and 10 minutes at a cadence 20% below FCC (FCC-20%). Pedal forces and kinematics were evaluated. The resultant force (RF), effective force (EF), index of effectiveness (IE) and IE during propulsive and recovery phase (IEprop and IErec, respectively) were computed. For W(60%), FCC-20% and FCC presented higher EFmean (69+/-9 N and 66+/-14 N, respectively) than FCC+20% (52+/-14 N). FCC presented the highest IEprop (81+/-4%) among the cadences (74+/-4 and 78+/-5% for FCC-20% and FCC+20%, respectively). For W(80%), FCC presented higher EFmean (81+/-5 N) than FCC+20% (72 +/- 10 N). The FCC-20% presented the lower IEprop (71+/-7%) among the cadences. The EFmin was higher for W(80%) than W(60%) for all cadences. The IE was higher at W (80%) (61+/-5%) than W (60%) (54+/-9%) for FCC+20% (all p<0.05). Lower cadences were more effective during the recovery phase for both intensities and FCC was the best technique during the propulsive phase.

No abstract

No abstract

The effects of saddle height on pedal forces and joint kinetics (e.g. mechanical work) are unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effects of saddle height on pedal forces, joint mechanical work and kinematics in 12 cyclists and 12 triathletes. Four sub-maximal 2-min cycling trials (3.4 W/kg and 90 rpm) were conducted using preferred, low and high saddle heights (±10° knee flexion at 6 o'clock crank position from the individual preferred height) and an advocated optimal saddle height (25° knee flexion at 6 o'clock crank position). Right pedal forces and lower limb kinematics were compared using effect sizes (ES). Increases in saddle height (5% of preferred height, ES=4.6) resulted in large increases in index of effectiveness (7%, ES=1.2) at the optimal compared to the preferred saddle height for cyclists. Greater knee (11-15%, ES=1.6) and smaller hip (6-8%, ES=1.7) angles were observed at the low (cyclists and triathletes) and preferred (triathletes only) saddle heights compared to high and optimal saddle heights. Smaller hip angle (5%, ES=1.0) and greater hip range of motion (9%, ES=1.0) were observed at the preferred saddle height for triathletes compared to cyclists. Changes in saddle height up to 5% of preferred saddle height for cyclists and 7% for triathletes affected hip and knee angles but not joint mechanical work. Cyclists and triathletes would opt for saddle heights <5 and <7%, respectively, within a range of their existing saddle height.

It is unclear if applying larger or more symmetrical pedal forces leads to better performance in cycling. The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between pedal force production and performance in a cycling time trial and to evaluate the relationship between asymmetries in pedal force production and performance. Fifteen competitive cyclists/triathletes performed a 20 km cycling time trial on a cycle trainer while bilateral forces applied to the pedals were recorded along with total time. Total forces applied to the pedals were computed and converted into dominant and non-dominant forces using a leg preference inventory. Pedal force asymmetries ranged from 43% (in favour of the dominant limb) to 34% (in favour of the non-dominant limb). The relationship between total pedal force (averaged from both pedals) and performance time was small (r=-.32, effect size=.66) as well as the association between the asymmetry indices and performance time (r=.01, effect size=.06). In conclusion, applying large forces on the pedals and balancing pedal force application between the dominant and non-dominant limbs did not lead to better performance in this cycling time trial.