Effects of Locomotor Muscle Fatigue on Joint-Specific Power Production during Cycling

Elmer, Steven J.; Marshall, Camden S.; Wehmanen, Kyle W.; Amann, Markus; McDaniel, John; Martin, David T.; Martin, James C.

doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31824fb8bd

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After the TT, maximum power in the fatigued ipsilateral leg was reduced by 22% and, despite some recovery, remained reduced at 5 min post-TT. These results generally support previous findings (Beelen and Sargeant 1991; Marcora and Staiano 2010a; Elmer et al 2012) of a ~30% reduction in maximum double-leg cycling power and indicate that high-intensity single-leg cycling was effective for inducing fatigue in the ipsilateral leg. The observed exercise-induced reduction in maximum power in the fatigued ipsilateral leg presumably manifested through a combination of central and peripheral mechanisms (Amann 2011), however, additional measurements are needed to confirm this.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…During the TT, participants were able to produce substantial power with one leg (~200 W) which resulted in increases in heart rate, blood lactate, and RPE generally similar to those reported during high-intensity double-leg cycling (Amann et al 2008; Amann et al 2009; Elmer et al 2012; Marcora and Staiano 2010a). Previous authors (Abbiss et al 2011; Bundle et al 2006) have demonstrated that high-intensity single-leg cycling permits higher individual leg power outputs compared to double-leg cycling.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fatigue is specific to working muscles: no cross-over with single-leg cycling in trained cyclists

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fatigue induced via a maximal isometric contraction of a single-limb muscle group can evoke a “cross-over” of fatigue that reduces voluntary muscle activation and maximum isometric force in the rested contralateral homologous muscle group. We asked whether a cross-over of fatigue also occurs when fatigue is induced via high-intensity endurance exercise involving a substantial muscle mass. Specifically, we used high-intensity single-leg cycling to induce fatigue and evaluated associated effects on maximum cycling power (Pmax) in the fatigued ipsilateral leg (FATleg) as well as the rested contralateral leg (RESTleg). On separate days, 12 trained cyclists performed right leg Pmax trials before and again 30s, 3, 5, and 10min after a cycling time trial (TT, 10min) performed either with their right or left leg. Fatigue was estimated by comparing exercise-induced changes in Pmax and maximum handgrip isometric force (Fmax). Mean power produced during the right and left leg TT’s did not differ (203±8 vs. 199±8W). Compared to pre-TT, FATleg Pmax was reduced by 22±3% at 30s post-TT and remained reduced by 9±2% at 5min post-TT (both P<0.05). Despite considerable power loss in the FATleg, post-TT RESTleg Pmax (596–603W) did not differ from pre-TT values (596±35W). There were no alterations in handgrip Fmax (529–547N). Our data suggest that any potential cross-over of fatigue, if present at all, was not sufficient to measurably compromise RESTleg Pmax in trained cyclists. These results along with the lack of changes in handgrip Fmax indicate that impairments in maximal voluntary neuromuscular function were specific to working muscles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Fatigue is specific to working muscles: no cross-over with single-leg cycling in trained cyclists

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mean values were calculated over the full pedaling cycle and for both the extension and flexion phase determined from kinematics. The extension phase was defined as an increase in the distance between the pedal and the hip joint, and the flexion phase was defined as a decrease in this distance …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extension phase was defined as an increase in the distance between the pedal and the hip joint, and the flexion phase was defined as a decrease in this distance. 29…”

Section: Motor Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor adaptations to unilateral quadriceps fatigue during a bilateral pedaling task

Nielsen

Hug

Guével

et al. 2016

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to investigate how motor coordination adapts to unilateral fatigue of the quadriceps during a constant-load bilateral pedaling task. We first hypothesized that this local fatigue would not be compensated within the fatigued muscles leading to a decreased knee extension power. Then, we aimed to determine whether this decrease would be compensated by between-joints compensations within the ipsilateral leg and/or an increased contribution of the contralateral leg. Fifteen healthy volunteers were tested during pedaling at 350 W before and after a fatigue protocol consisting of 15 minutes of electromyostimulation on the quadriceps muscle. Motor coordination was assessed from myoelectrical activity (22 muscles) and joint powers calculated through inverse dynamics. Maximal knee extension torque decreased by 28.3%±6.8% (P<.0005) immediately after electromyostimulation. A decreased knee extension power produced by the ipsilateral leg was observed during pedaling (-22.8±12.3 W, -17.0%±9.4%; P<.0005). To maintain the task goal, participants primarily increased the power produced by the non-fatigued contralateral leg during the flexion phase. This was achieved by an increase in hip flexion power confirmed by a higher activation of the tensor fascia latae. These results suggest no adjustment of neural drive to the fatigued muscles and demonstrate no concurrent ipsilateral compensation by the non-fatigued muscles involved in the extension pedaling phase. Although interindividual variability was observed, findings provide evidence that participants predominantly adapted by compensating with the contralateral leg during its flexion phase. Both neural (between legs) and mechanical (between pedals) couplings and the minimization of cost functions might explain these results.

show abstract

“…In order to carefully examine whether power output produced at a given sense of effort would be adjusted in response to altered perceptions of peripheral discomfort, the same cycling cadence was used for each 4-s cycling bout in all trials. Using this approach, exercise-induced changes in physiological and perceptual responses along with mechanical output would not be influenced by changes in pedalling rates (Elmer et al, 2012). For each of the five submaximal cycling bouts subjects were instructed to work at a subjective “sense of effort” of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the modified Borg CR10 “sense of effort scale” (see sense of effort and perceived discomfort scales below), respectively, with 40 s of recovery (15 s of passive rest and 25 s of cycling at ~100 W) interspersing each bout.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of sense of effort on self-selected cycling power output

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: We explored the effects of the sense of effort and accompanying perceptions of peripheral discomfort on self-selected cycle power output under two different inspired O2 fractions.Methods: On separate days, eight trained males cycled for 5 min at a constant subjective effort (sense of effort of ‘3’ on a modified Borg CR10 scale), immediately followed by five 4-s progressive submaximal (sense of effort of “4, 5, 6, 7, and 8”; 40 s between bouts) and two 4-s maximal (sense of effort of “10”; 3 min between bouts) bouts under normoxia (NM: fraction of inspired O2 [FiO2] 0.21) and hypoxia (HY: [FiO2] 0.13). Physiological (Heart Rate, arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and quadriceps Root Mean Square (RMS) electromyographical activity) and perceptual responses (overall peripheral discomfort, difficulty breathing and limb discomfort) were recorded.Results: Power output and normalized quadriceps RMS activity were not different between conditions during any exercise bout (p > 0.05) and remained unchanged across time during the constant-effort cycling. SpO2 was lower, while heart rate and ratings of perceived difficulty breathing were higher under HY, compared to NM, at all time points (p < 0.05). During the constant-effort cycling, heart rate, overall perceived discomfort, difficulty breathing and limb discomfort increased with time (all p < 0.05). All variables (except SpO2) increased along with sense of effort during the brief progressive cycling bouts (all p < 0.05). During the two maximal cycling bouts, ratings of overall peripheral discomfort displayed an interaction between time and condition with ratings higher in the second bout under HY vs. NM conditions. Conclusion: During self-selected, constant-effort and brief progressive, sub-maximal, and maximal cycling bouts, mechanical work is regulated in parallel to the sense of effort, independently from peripheral sensations of discomfort.

show abstract

Effects of Locomotor Muscle Fatigue on Joint-Specific Power Production during Cycling

Cited by 16 publications

References 39 publications

Fatigue is specific to working muscles: no cross-over with single-leg cycling in trained cyclists

Fatigue is specific to working muscles: no cross-over with single-leg cycling in trained cyclists

Motor adaptations to unilateral quadriceps fatigue during a bilateral pedaling task

The role of sense of effort on self-selected cycling power output

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About