Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants
The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of four different crank fore-aft positions on elbow flexion and shoulder protraction, the consequent propulsion kinetics and the physiological responses during handcycling. Twelve able-bodied male participants volunteered in this study...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-08, Vol.14 (8), p.e0220943-e0220943 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0220943 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | e0220943 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Vegter, Riemer J K Mason, Barry S Sporrel, Bastiaan Stone, Benjamin van der Woude, Lucas H V Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L |
description | The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of four different crank fore-aft positions on elbow flexion and shoulder protraction, the consequent propulsion kinetics and the physiological responses during handcycling.
Twelve able-bodied male participants volunteered in this study. Crank fore-aft positions were standardised at 94%, 97%, 100% and 103% of the participants' arm length. Two submaximal 3 min trials were performed at a fixed cadence (70 rpm), in a recumbent handcyle attached to an ergometer at two fixed power outputs (30W and 60W). Elbow flexion, shoulder protraction, propulsion kinetics and physiological responses of the participants were continuously measured.
As crank fore-aft distance increased, a decrease in elbow flexion (42±4, 37±3, 33±3, 29±3°) and an increase shoulder protraction was observed (29±5, 31±5, 34±5, 36±5°). The percentage of work done in the pull phase increased as well (62±7, 65±7, 67±6, 69±8%, at 60W), which was in line with an increased peak torque during the pull phase (8.8±1.6, 9.0±1.4, 9.4±1.5, 9.7±1.4Nm, at 60W) and reduced peak torque during the push phase (6.0±0.9, 5.6±0.9,5.6±0.9, 5.4±1.0Nm, in 60W condition). Despite these changes in work distribution, there were no significant changes in gross mechanical efficiency (15.7±0.8, 16.2±1.1, 15.8±0.9, 15.6±1.0%, at 60W). The same patterns were observed in the 30W condition.
From a biomechanical perspective the crank position closest to the trunk (94%) seems to be advantageous, because it evens the load over the push and pull phase, which reduces speed fluctuations, without causing an increase in whole body energy expenditure and hence a decrease of gross mechanical efficiency. These findings may help handcyclists to optimize their recumbent handcycle configuration. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0220943 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2275930440</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A596863581</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_8a7e104014d849c38d81c9c83aff4399</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A596863581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89bb94f191fa56b678089122b0d00baa49622c1ad876a212a7c9378275dd51d73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG42MWHxLFvkKoVh0qVKnG6tSa2s_HWawc7Keyj8LZ4t9uqi3qBfGFr_M0_4_FMUTzHaI5pg9-twhQ9uPkQvJkjQpCo6IPiGAtKZowg-vDO-ah4ktIKoZpyxh4XRxRXpK7r5rj4s4jgL8suRDODbiyHkOxogy_BjSamcuxNqW0ao22nnT105a8QL8twZeLudphSX4LX-eBcOfSQsscUrV-WaeNVH4MPUyqjUdO6NX4s-wyrjXJbIqtB68ysDdqaLAFxtMoO4Mf0tHjUgUvm2X4_Kb5__PBt8Xl2fvHpbHF6PlNMkHHGRduKqsMCd1CzljUccYEJaZFGqAWoBCNEYdC8YUAwgUYJ2nDS1FrXWDf0pHh5rTu4kOS-qkmSTAiKqgpl4uya0AFWcoh2DXEjA1i5M4S4lLu8nZEcGoNRhXCleSUU5ZpjJRSn0HUVFSJrvd9Hm9q10SoXJII7ED288baXy3AlGROCNTgLvNkLxPBzMmmUa5uUcQ68yXXOefM6Z0DYNu9X_6D3v25PLSE_wPou5LhqKypPa8E4ozXfhp3fQ-Wlzdqq3IKdzfYDh7cHDpkZze9xCVNK8uzrl_9nL34csq_vsL3Jfdqn4HbNmQ7B6hpUMaQUTXdbZIzkdoJuqiG3EyT3E5TdXtz9oFunm5GhfwGw2hhC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2275930440</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Vegter, Riemer J K ; Mason, Barry S ; Sporrel, Bastiaan ; Stone, Benjamin ; van der Woude, Lucas H V ; Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</creator><creatorcontrib>Vegter, Riemer J K ; Mason, Barry S ; Sporrel, Bastiaan ; Stone, Benjamin ; van der Woude, Lucas H V ; Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of four different crank fore-aft positions on elbow flexion and shoulder protraction, the consequent propulsion kinetics and the physiological responses during handcycling.
Twelve able-bodied male participants volunteered in this study. Crank fore-aft positions were standardised at 94%, 97%, 100% and 103% of the participants' arm length. Two submaximal 3 min trials were performed at a fixed cadence (70 rpm), in a recumbent handcyle attached to an ergometer at two fixed power outputs (30W and 60W). Elbow flexion, shoulder protraction, propulsion kinetics and physiological responses of the participants were continuously measured.
As crank fore-aft distance increased, a decrease in elbow flexion (42±4, 37±3, 33±3, 29±3°) and an increase shoulder protraction was observed (29±5, 31±5, 34±5, 36±5°). The percentage of work done in the pull phase increased as well (62±7, 65±7, 67±6, 69±8%, at 60W), which was in line with an increased peak torque during the pull phase (8.8±1.6, 9.0±1.4, 9.4±1.5, 9.7±1.4Nm, at 60W) and reduced peak torque during the push phase (6.0±0.9, 5.6±0.9,5.6±0.9, 5.4±1.0Nm, in 60W condition). Despite these changes in work distribution, there were no significant changes in gross mechanical efficiency (15.7±0.8, 16.2±1.1, 15.8±0.9, 15.6±1.0%, at 60W). The same patterns were observed in the 30W condition.
From a biomechanical perspective the crank position closest to the trunk (94%) seems to be advantageous, because it evens the load over the push and pull phase, which reduces speed fluctuations, without causing an increase in whole body energy expenditure and hence a decrease of gross mechanical efficiency. These findings may help handcyclists to optimize their recumbent handcycle configuration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220943</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31425557</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Arm ; Bicycling - physiology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Biomechanics ; Cycling ; Efficiency ; Elbow ; Elbow (anatomy) ; Elbow Joint - physiology ; Energy efficiency ; Energy expenditure ; Energy Metabolism - physiology ; Ergometry ; Hand - physiology ; Health sciences ; Humans ; Kinetics ; Male ; Mechanical efficiency ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Physical Sciences ; Physiological aspects ; Physiological research ; Physiological responses ; Physiology ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Shoulder ; Shoulder Joint - physiology ; Spinal cord injuries ; Studies ; Torque ; Torso - physiology ; Variations ; Velocity ; Wheelchairs ; Work (Physics) ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-08, Vol.14 (8), p.e0220943-e0220943</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Vegter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Vegter et al 2019 Vegter et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89bb94f191fa56b678089122b0d00baa49622c1ad876a212a7c9378275dd51d73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89bb94f191fa56b678089122b0d00baa49622c1ad876a212a7c9378275dd51d73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8472-334X ; 0000-0002-4294-6086</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6699671/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6699671/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31425557$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vegter, Riemer J K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, Barry S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sporrel, Bastiaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Woude, Lucas H V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</creatorcontrib><title>Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of four different crank fore-aft positions on elbow flexion and shoulder protraction, the consequent propulsion kinetics and the physiological responses during handcycling.
Twelve able-bodied male participants volunteered in this study. Crank fore-aft positions were standardised at 94%, 97%, 100% and 103% of the participants' arm length. Two submaximal 3 min trials were performed at a fixed cadence (70 rpm), in a recumbent handcyle attached to an ergometer at two fixed power outputs (30W and 60W). Elbow flexion, shoulder protraction, propulsion kinetics and physiological responses of the participants were continuously measured.
As crank fore-aft distance increased, a decrease in elbow flexion (42±4, 37±3, 33±3, 29±3°) and an increase shoulder protraction was observed (29±5, 31±5, 34±5, 36±5°). The percentage of work done in the pull phase increased as well (62±7, 65±7, 67±6, 69±8%, at 60W), which was in line with an increased peak torque during the pull phase (8.8±1.6, 9.0±1.4, 9.4±1.5, 9.7±1.4Nm, at 60W) and reduced peak torque during the push phase (6.0±0.9, 5.6±0.9,5.6±0.9, 5.4±1.0Nm, in 60W condition). Despite these changes in work distribution, there were no significant changes in gross mechanical efficiency (15.7±0.8, 16.2±1.1, 15.8±0.9, 15.6±1.0%, at 60W). The same patterns were observed in the 30W condition.
From a biomechanical perspective the crank position closest to the trunk (94%) seems to be advantageous, because it evens the load over the push and pull phase, which reduces speed fluctuations, without causing an increase in whole body energy expenditure and hence a decrease of gross mechanical efficiency. These findings may help handcyclists to optimize their recumbent handcycle configuration.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Arm</subject><subject>Bicycling - physiology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Cycling</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Elbow</subject><subject>Elbow (anatomy)</subject><subject>Elbow Joint - physiology</subject><subject>Energy efficiency</subject><subject>Energy expenditure</subject><subject>Energy Metabolism - physiology</subject><subject>Ergometry</subject><subject>Hand - physiology</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kinetics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mechanical efficiency</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Physiological research</subject><subject>Physiological responses</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Shoulder</subject><subject>Shoulder Joint - physiology</subject><subject>Spinal cord injuries</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Torque</subject><subject>Torso - physiology</subject><subject>Variations</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><subject>Wheelchairs</subject><subject>Work (Physics)</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG42MWHxLFvkKoVh0qVKnG6tSa2s_HWawc7Keyj8LZ4t9uqi3qBfGFr_M0_4_FMUTzHaI5pg9-twhQ9uPkQvJkjQpCo6IPiGAtKZowg-vDO-ah4ktIKoZpyxh4XRxRXpK7r5rj4s4jgL8suRDODbiyHkOxogy_BjSamcuxNqW0ao22nnT105a8QL8twZeLudphSX4LX-eBcOfSQsscUrV-WaeNVH4MPUyqjUdO6NX4s-wyrjXJbIqtB68ysDdqaLAFxtMoO4Mf0tHjUgUvm2X4_Kb5__PBt8Xl2fvHpbHF6PlNMkHHGRduKqsMCd1CzljUccYEJaZFGqAWoBCNEYdC8YUAwgUYJ2nDS1FrXWDf0pHh5rTu4kOS-qkmSTAiKqgpl4uya0AFWcoh2DXEjA1i5M4S4lLu8nZEcGoNRhXCleSUU5ZpjJRSn0HUVFSJrvd9Hm9q10SoXJII7ED288baXy3AlGROCNTgLvNkLxPBzMmmUa5uUcQ68yXXOefM6Z0DYNu9X_6D3v25PLSE_wPou5LhqKypPa8E4ozXfhp3fQ-Wlzdqq3IKdzfYDh7cHDpkZze9xCVNK8uzrl_9nL34csq_vsL3Jfdqn4HbNmQ7B6hpUMaQUTXdbZIzkdoJuqiG3EyT3E5TdXtz9oFunm5GhfwGw2hhC</recordid><startdate>20190819</startdate><enddate>20190819</enddate><creator>Vegter, Riemer J K</creator><creator>Mason, Barry S</creator><creator>Sporrel, Bastiaan</creator><creator>Stone, Benjamin</creator><creator>van der Woude, Lucas H V</creator><creator>Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8472-334X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4294-6086</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190819</creationdate><title>Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants</title><author>Vegter, Riemer J K ; Mason, Barry S ; Sporrel, Bastiaan ; Stone, Benjamin ; van der Woude, Lucas H V ; Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89bb94f191fa56b678089122b0d00baa49622c1ad876a212a7c9378275dd51d73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Arm</topic><topic>Bicycling - physiology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Cycling</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Elbow</topic><topic>Elbow (anatomy)</topic><topic>Elbow Joint - physiology</topic><topic>Energy efficiency</topic><topic>Energy expenditure</topic><topic>Energy Metabolism - physiology</topic><topic>Ergometry</topic><topic>Hand - physiology</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kinetics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mechanical efficiency</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Physiological research</topic><topic>Physiological responses</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Shoulder</topic><topic>Shoulder Joint - physiology</topic><topic>Spinal cord injuries</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Torque</topic><topic>Torso - physiology</topic><topic>Variations</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><topic>Wheelchairs</topic><topic>Work (Physics)</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vegter, Riemer J K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, Barry S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sporrel, Bastiaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Woude, Lucas H V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vegter, Riemer J K</au><au>Mason, Barry S</au><au>Sporrel, Bastiaan</au><au>Stone, Benjamin</au><au>van der Woude, Lucas H V</au><au>Goosey-Tolfrey, Vicky L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-08-19</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0220943</spage><epage>e0220943</epage><pages>e0220943-e0220943</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of four different crank fore-aft positions on elbow flexion and shoulder protraction, the consequent propulsion kinetics and the physiological responses during handcycling.
Twelve able-bodied male participants volunteered in this study. Crank fore-aft positions were standardised at 94%, 97%, 100% and 103% of the participants' arm length. Two submaximal 3 min trials were performed at a fixed cadence (70 rpm), in a recumbent handcyle attached to an ergometer at two fixed power outputs (30W and 60W). Elbow flexion, shoulder protraction, propulsion kinetics and physiological responses of the participants were continuously measured.
As crank fore-aft distance increased, a decrease in elbow flexion (42±4, 37±3, 33±3, 29±3°) and an increase shoulder protraction was observed (29±5, 31±5, 34±5, 36±5°). The percentage of work done in the pull phase increased as well (62±7, 65±7, 67±6, 69±8%, at 60W), which was in line with an increased peak torque during the pull phase (8.8±1.6, 9.0±1.4, 9.4±1.5, 9.7±1.4Nm, at 60W) and reduced peak torque during the push phase (6.0±0.9, 5.6±0.9,5.6±0.9, 5.4±1.0Nm, in 60W condition). Despite these changes in work distribution, there were no significant changes in gross mechanical efficiency (15.7±0.8, 16.2±1.1, 15.8±0.9, 15.6±1.0%, at 60W). The same patterns were observed in the 30W condition.
From a biomechanical perspective the crank position closest to the trunk (94%) seems to be advantageous, because it evens the load over the push and pull phase, which reduces speed fluctuations, without causing an increase in whole body energy expenditure and hence a decrease of gross mechanical efficiency. These findings may help handcyclists to optimize their recumbent handcycle configuration.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31425557</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0220943</doi><tpages>e0220943</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8472-334X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4294-6086</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2019-08, Vol.14 (8), p.e0220943-e0220943 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2275930440 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
subjects | Adult Arm Bicycling - physiology Biology and Life Sciences Biomechanical Phenomena Biomechanics Cycling Efficiency Elbow Elbow (anatomy) Elbow Joint - physiology Energy efficiency Energy expenditure Energy Metabolism - physiology Ergometry Hand - physiology Health sciences Humans Kinetics Male Mechanical efficiency Medicine and Health Sciences Physical Sciences Physiological aspects Physiological research Physiological responses Physiology Range of Motion, Articular - physiology Shoulder Shoulder Joint - physiology Spinal cord injuries Studies Torque Torso - physiology Variations Velocity Wheelchairs Work (Physics) Young Adult |
title | Crank fore-aft position alters the distribution of work over the push and pull phase during synchronous recumbent handcycling of able-bodied participants |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T04%3A09%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Crank%20fore-aft%20position%20alters%20the%20distribution%20of%20work%20over%20the%20push%20and%20pull%20phase%20during%20synchronous%20recumbent%20handcycling%20of%20able-bodied%20participants&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Vegter,%20Riemer%20J%20K&rft.date=2019-08-19&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0220943&rft.epage=e0220943&rft.pages=e0220943-e0220943&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0220943&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA596863581%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2275930440&rft_id=info:pmid/31425557&rft_galeid=A596863581&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_8a7e104014d849c38d81c9c83aff4399&rfr_iscdi=true |