Moving forward: A review of continuous kinetics and kinematics during wheelchair and handcycling propulsion

Halloran, Kellie; Focht, Michael; Teague, Alexander; Peters, Joseph I; Rice, Ian; Kersh, Mariana E.

doi:10.31224/2236

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As related to the current study of kinematics in the sagittal plane (flexion/ extension movements), these results must be interpreted cautiously as they might not apply to arm-cycling sprinting. In addition, in the current study, the configuration of the ergometer and the variables of intensity and speed were different from previous studies (50,55,57,58). As Botzheim et al (50) suggested, those differences affect muscle activation and could potentially change the kinematics of the movement task.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

The Effects of Load, Crank Position, and Sex on the Biomechanics and Performance during an Upper Body Wingate Anaerobic Test

Antolinez,

Edwards,

Holmes

et al. 2024

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The upper body Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) is a 30-second maximal effort sprint against a set load (percentage of body mass). However, there is no consensus on the optimal load and no differential values for males and females, even when there are well-studied anatomical and physiological differences in muscle mass for the upper body. Our goal was to describe the effects of load, sex, and crank position on the kinetics, kinematics, and performance of the upper body WAnT. Methods Eighteen participants (9 females) performed three WAnTs at 3, 4, and 5% of body mass. Arm crank forces, 2D kinematics, and performance variables were recorded during each WAnT. Results Our results showed an increase of ~49% effective force, ~36% peak power, ~5° neck flexion, and ~ 30° shoulder flexion from 3-5% load (p < .05). Mean power and anaerobic capacity decreased by 15%, with no changes in fatigue index (p < .05). The positions of higher force efficiency were at 12 and 6 o’clock. The least force efficiency occurred at 3 o’clock (p < .05). Sex differences showed that males produced 97% more effective force and 109% greater mean power than females, with 11.7% more force efficiency (p < .001). Males had 16° more head/neck flexion than females, and females had greater elbow joint variability with 17° more wrist extension at higher loads. Males cycled ~32% faster at 3 vs 5% load with a 65% higher angular velocity than females. Grip strength, MVIC, mass, and height positively correlated with peak and mean power (p < .001). Conclusions In conclusion, load, sex, and crank position have a significant impact on performance of the WAnT. These factors should be considered when developing and implementing an upper body WAnT.

show abstract