Can muscle coordination explain the advantage of using the standing position during intense cycling?

Turpin, Nicolas A.; Costes, Antony; Moretto, Pierre; Watier, Bruno

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2016.10.019

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Changing from a seated to a standing position alters recruitment patterns, and it increases muscle activation in both upper and lower body muscles. [12][13][14][15] For example, Li and colleagues 12 showed an increase in electromyography (EMG) magnitude of the rectus femoris, gluteus maximus, and the tibialis anterior in the standing position. Furthermore, the gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, and vastus lateralis were longer activated during the pedal stroke.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 This altered muscle recruitment patterns, and it increased muscle activation in both upper and lower body muscles. [12][13][14][15] As a result of this, cyclists can produce higher power outputs in the standing position when compared with a seated position in both endurance/uphill cycling [15][16][17] and sprinting. 18,19 For example, greater mean power output was observed during 8 seconds sprints in a standing position, compared with a seated position in both recreational (966.7 vs 867.0 W, respectively) and elite cyclo-cross cyclists (1010.5 vs 891.8 W, respectively).…”

Section: Merkes Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Merkes

Menaspà

Abbiss

2019

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Compare power output, cadence, and torque in the seated, standing, and forward standing cycling sprint positions. Methods: On three separated occasions (ie, one for each position), 11 recreational male road cyclists performed a 14 seconds sprint before and directly after a high-intensity lead-up. Power output, cadence, and torque were measured during each sprint. Results: No significant differences in peak and mean power output were observed between the forward standing (1125.5 ± 48.5 W and 896.0 ± 32.7 W, respectively) and either the seated or standing positions (1042.5 ± 46.8 W and 856.5 ± 29.4 W;1175.4 ± 44.9 W and 927.5 ± 28.9 W, respectively). Power output was higher in the standing, compared with the seated position. No difference was observed in cadence between positions. At the start of the sprint before the lead-up, peak torque was higher in the standing position vs the forward standing position; and peak torque occurred later in the pedal revolution for both the forward standing and standing positions when compared with the seated position. At the start of the sprint after the lead-up, peak torque occurred later in the forward standing position when compared with both the seated and standing position. At the end of the sprint, no difference in torque was found between the forward standing and standing position either before or after the lead-up. Conclusion: Sprinting in the forward standing sprint position does not impair power output, cadence, and torque when compared with the seated and standing sprint positions. K E Y W O R D S cyclist, fatigue, performance, seated and standing position, sprinting How to cite this article: Merkes PFJ, Menaspà P, Abbiss CR. Power output, cadence, and torque are similar between the forward standing and traditional sprint cycling positions. Scand J Med Sci Sports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Merkes Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Merkes

Menaspà

Abbiss

2019

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turpin N.A. et al have evaluated muscle activity in a wide range of output powers for sedentary and standing positions on a bicycle [43]. The authors note that the number and structure of muscle synergism play secondary role in using standing position when pedaling at high power outputs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency of the bicycle operation under various tactical variants

Kolumbet

Bazulyuk

Dudorova

et al. 2017

PES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:to determine the efficiency of the cyclist in various tactical options. Material:In the experiments participated athletes (n = 6) of high qualification (mean age -19.8 ± 1.3 years, mean weight -71.4 ± 3.5 kg). As a model of the individual pursuit race at 4 km, a five-minute pedaling on the bicycle ergometer was used. Series of loads was set on the modernized mechanical bicycle ergometer "Monark". The five-minute bicycle ergometer test is similar to the individual pursuit race at 4 km: according to the time of the exercise; on the frequency of pedaling (110-120 rpm); on the frequency of heartbeats. Results:Tactical variants in the pursuit race at 4 km are considered. The total work in a free test was on average 106.38 ± 3.57 kJ. The operating energy consumption is on average for 379.0±16.1 kJ. The operating efficiency (economy) of the exercise attained on average for 28.0 ± 0.75%. This corresponds to the effectiveness of aerobic work of moderate power. The ratio of aerobic and anaerobic contributions to the provision of work was 77.3 and 22.7%. The smallest work was done in a test with step-increasing power. The athletes performed the closest work to the given job in the test with a variable (±15%) operating mode. The shortfall in it was on average for 0.46%. The absence of reliable differences in the economics of the work did not allow us to identify a rational variant of power distribution for an exercise lasting 5 minutes. Conclusions:Tactical options in the pursuit race for 4 km depend on the features of the power systems of the rider. When optimizing tactics, it is necessary to select an individually optimal variant of the distribution of forces at a distance.

show abstract

“…Based on previous studies, at least two hypotheses can be formulated to explain this spontaneous transition. First, the cycling movement may be associated with a cost function whose value is reduced when the transition is made (Costes et al, 2017;Poirier et al, 2007;Turpin et al, 2016). Alternatively, the mechanical constraints that arise at a high power output may lead the cyclist to transition from a seated to a standing position (Costes et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both positions, the magnitude of the mechanical variables (e.g., joint torques), the muscle activation levels, and the metabolic energy expenditure increase with power output (Li et al, 1998;McDaniel et al, 2002McDaniel et al, , 2014. However, joint torques and muscle activation levels increase at a higher rate in the seated position but have lower baseline values, i.e., lower electromyogram (EMG) levels and torque when the power output is zero (Turpin et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of the spontaneous seat-to-stand transition in cycling with bodyweight and cadence variations

Watier

Costes

Turpin

2017

Journal of Biomechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a high power output is required in cycling, a spontaneous transition by the cyclist from a seated to a standing position generally occurs. In this study, by varying the cadence and cyclist bodyweight, we tested whether the transition is better explained by the greater power economy of a standing position or by the emergence of mechanical constraints that force cyclists to stand. Ten males participated in five experimental sessions corresponding to different bodyweights (80%, 100%, or 120%) and cadences (50RPM, 70RPM, or 90RPM). In each session, we first determined the seat-to-stand transition power (SSTP) in an incremental test. The participants then cycled at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, or 120% of the SSTP in the seated and standing positions, for which we recorded the saddle forces and electromyogram (EMG) signals of eight lower limb muscles. We estimated the cycling cost using an EMG cost function (ECF) and the minimal saddle forces in the seated position as an indicator of the mechanical constraints. Our results show the SSTP to vary with respect to both cadence and bodyweight. The ECF was lower in the standing position above the SSTP value (i.e., at 120%) in all experimental sessions. The minimal saddle forces varied significantly with respect to both cadence and bodyweight. These results suggest that optimization of the muscular cost function, rather than mechanical constraints, explain the seat-to-stand transition in cycling.

show abstract

Can muscle coordination explain the advantage of using the standing position during intense cycling?

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

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

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

Efficiency of the bicycle operation under various tactical variants

Modification of the spontaneous seat-to-stand transition in cycling with bodyweight and cadence variations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About