The influence of crank configuration on muscle activity and torque production during arm crank ergometry

Smith, Paul M.; Chapman, Mark L.; Hazlehurst, Kathryn E.; Goss-Sampson, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.12.006

Cited by 34 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding echos observations by Smith et al, (2008) who used non-specifically trained participants during seated, sub-maximal arm-crank ergometry. Using torque data, these authors demonstrated that the propulsive forces produced by the dominant arm were greater than those of the contra-lateral limb, and suggested this might place an over reliance on the dominant arm to produce effective forces.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Evaluation of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Assessing Body Composition of Wrestlers

Utter

Lambeth

2010

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the optimal crank length and crank-axle height for maximum power production during standing arm-cranking ('grinding'). Methods: Nine elite professional America's Cup grinders (age: 36 ± 2 y; body mass: 104 ± 1 kg; body fat 13 ± 2%) performed eight maximal 6 s sprints on an adjustable standing arm-crank ergometer fitted with an SRM powercrank. The protocol included crank lengths of 162, 199, 236 and 273 mm and crank-axle heights of 850, 950, 1050 and 1150 mm. Peak power, ground reaction forces (GRF) and joint angles were determined and compared for different crank lengths and crank-axle heights with repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: Peak power was significantly different between crank lengths (P=0.006), with 162 mm lower than all others (P<0.03). Optimal crank length was 12.3% of arm-span, or 241 ± 9 mm for this cohort of athletes. Peak power was significantly less for the crank-axle height of 850 mm compared to 1150 mm (P=0.01). The optimal crank-axle height for peak power was between 50 and 60% of stature (950-1150 mm in this study). Hip flexion was greater at the lowest crank-axle height (850 mm) than at 1050 and 1150 mm (P<0.01), and the resultant GRF was also reduced compared to all other heights, indicating greater weight bearing by the upper body. Conclusions: Changes in crank length and crank-axle height influence performance during maximal standing arm-crank ergometry. These results, suggest that standard leg-cycle crank lengths are inappropriate for maximal arm-cranking performance. In addition, a crank-axle height of <50% of stature, which is typically used in America's Cup sailing, may attenuate performance.Keywords: Hand Cycle; Grinding; Upper body; America's Cup; Sailing INTRODUCTIONArm-cranking, in particular standing arm-cranking has become increasingly popular as a means of assessing upper-limb performance (2, 6, 17). However, the optimal configurations for power production during arm-cranking have not been determined. In cycling, the manipulation of joint angles, through changes in the structure of bicycle components, has been shown to influence performance (5, 10, 21). For example, changes in seat height and cycle crank lengths directly affect hip and knee joint angles, the range of motion and angular velocity of the joints, and thus cycling performance (21). The optimal crank length for maximum power production has been reported to be 20% of leg length (10) and the optimal seat height appears to be 109% of inseam length (ischium to ground when standing) (5). It seems highly likely therefore that changes to the configuration of arm-crank ergometry, specifically crank length and crank-axle height, could also affect performance. Given the angle-torque and torque-velocity relationships of human muscle function, there is a clear rationale for how interventions that effect upper extremity joint range of motion and angular velocities may influence arm cranking performance.Big-boat yacht racing is one of the only able bodied sports where arm-cranking is the primary ph...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Evaluation of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Assessing Body Composition of Wrestlers

Utter

Lambeth

2010

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Krämer et al [24] and Smith et al [8] showed two maxima in the torque distribution during pulling and pushing in hand cycling. By varying the diameter of the chainring, the duration of low force generation should theoretically be shortened and that of high forces lengthened [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, physiological performance analysis [4][5][6], technological innovations such as the comparison of asynchronous and synchronous crank configurations [5,[7][8][9], and the influence of different crank lengths [10][11] have all been the focus of scientific research associated with this sport. Here we show that mechanical efficiency, in the form of both gross efficiency (GE) and net efficiency (NE), is viewed as an important variable when comparing different hand cycle configurations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of noncircular chainring on male physiological parameters in hand cycling

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of a noncircular chainring (NCC) compared with a conventional circular chainring (CC) on hand cycling performance. Eleven nondisabled male participants with no hand cycling experience initially completed an incremental exercise test. Afterward, the participants completed two 20 s sprint tests, followed by a 20 min endurance test and then another two 20 s sprint tests. An NCC and a CC were used in random order on two separate occasions. To compare the effects of the NCC and CC on power data of the sprint tests and metabolic response during the endurance test, a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measures was used. Average power values of the sprint tests showed no significant difference between NCC and CC, but over time, values of the first and third sprint tests were higher than those of the second and fourth sprint tests for both chainrings. Values of energy expenditure (kilojoules), gross efficiency (percentage), and net efficiency (percentage) after 10 and 20 min during the endurance test using NCC and CC showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) either between tests or over time. Under the current test conditions and focusing on physiological parameters, a performance optimization using an NCC in hand cycling could not be proven.

show abstract

“…The total lean mass for the arms and the shoulders and the addition of the muscle groups of the back and chest, was measured and reported as the upper body lean body mass (UBLBM). The UBLBM muscles have been reported as active during upper body arm ergometry [14], and as such are reported and referred to as the ACTIVE muscle mass during the upper body 5 × 6 s sprint test. For the lower body, both legs and gluteal muscle groups were measured and reported as lower body lean body mass (LBLBM) [4].…”

Section: Body Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of High Intensity Intermittent Exercise on Power Output for the Upper Body

Harvey

Bousson

McLellan

et al. 2015

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of the present study was to examine and measure high intensity, intermittent upper body performance, in addition to identifying areas of the body that affect the variance in total work done during the 5 × 6 s sprint test. Fifteen males completed an upper body 5 × 6 s sprint test on a modified electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer, which consisted of five maximal effort sprints, each 6 s in duration, separated by 24 s of passive recovery. A fly wheel braking force corresponding to 5% of the participants' body weight was used as the implemented resistance level. Body composition was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Percent (%) decrement was calculated as 100 − (Total work/ideal work) × 100. Significant (P < 0.05) differences were found between sprints for both absolute and relative (W, W·kg −1 , W·kg −1 Lean body mass (LBM) and W·kg −1 Upper body lean body mass (UBLBM)) peak (PP) and mean (MP) power. The % decrement in total work done over the five sprints was 11.4%. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis revealed that UBLBM accounts for 87% of the variance in total work done during the upper body 5 × 6 s sprint test. These results provide a descriptive analysis of upper body, high intensity intermittent exercise, demonstrating that PP and MP output decreased significantly during the upper body 5 × 6 s sprint test. OPEN ACCESSSports 2015, 3 137

show abstract

The influence of crank configuration on muscle activity and torque production during arm crank ergometry

Cited by 34 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluation of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Assessing Body Composition of Wrestlers

Evaluation of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Assessing Body Composition of Wrestlers

Influence of noncircular chainring on male physiological parameters in hand cycling

The Effect of High Intensity Intermittent Exercise on Power Output for the Upper Body

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About