Eccentric contractions (ie, active lengthening of the muscle) require less oxygen uptake than concentric contractions performed at same power output. 1 For this reason, eccentric cycle ergometers, on which patients resist the pedals driven backward by a motor, have been developed. Locomotor exercises (eg, cycling or running) differ from single-joint exercises because they require a more complex coordination and involve more muscle mass, affecting individuals' fatigability. 2 Among locomotor exercises, eccentric cycling differs from downhill running because it

How corticospinal excitability changes during eccentric locomotor exercise is unknown. In the present study, 13 volunteers performed 30-min strenuous concentric and eccentric cycling bouts at the same power output (60% concentric peak power output). Transcranial magnetic and electrical femoral nerve stimulations were applied at exercise onset (3rd min) and end (25th min). Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) amplitude was measured for the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles with surface electromyography (EMG) and expressed as a percentage of maximal M-wave amplitude (MMAX). EMG amplitude 100 ms prior to MEPs and the silent period duration were calculated. There was no change in any neural parameter during the exercises (all P > 0.24). VL and RF MMAX were unaffected by exercise modality (all P > 0.38). VL MEP amplitude was greater (26 ± 11.4 vs. 15.2 ± 7.7% MMAX; P = 0.008) during concentric than eccentric cycling whereas RF MEP amplitude was not different (24.4 ± 10.8 vs. 17.2 ± 9.8% MMAX; P = 0.051). While VL EMG was higher during concentric than eccentric cycling (P = 0.03), RF EMG showed no significant difference (P = 0.07). Similar silent period durations were found (RF: 120 ± 30 ms; VL: 114 ± 27 ms; all P > 0.61), but the silent period/MEP ratio was higher during eccentric than concentric cycling for both muscles (all P < 0.02). In conclusion, corticospinal excitability to the knee extensors is lower and relative silent period longer during eccentric than concentric cycling, yet both remained unaltered with time.

There is a wide range of cadence available to cyclists to produce power, yet they choose to pedal across a narrow one. While neuromuscular alterations during a pedaling bout at non-preferred cadences were previously reviewed, modifications subsequent to one fatiguing session or training intervention have not been focused on. We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science up to the end of 2020. Thirteen relevant articles were identified, among which eleven focused on fatigability and two on training intervention. Cadences were mainly defined as “low” and “high” compared with a range of freely chosen cadences for given power output. However, the heterogeneity of selected cadences, neuromuscular assessment methodology, and selected population makes the comparison between the studies complicated. Even though cycling at a high cadence and high intensity impaired more neuromuscular function and performance than low-cadence cycling, it remains unclear if cycling cadence plays a role in the onset of fatigue. Research concerning the effect of training at non-preferred cadences on neuromuscular adaptation allows us to encourage the use of various training stimuli but not to say whether a range of cadences favors subsequent neuromuscular performance.

Purpose: To study the consequences of a fatiguing ultratrail run of 6 hours on self-optimizing capability during uphill and downhill (DR) running. Methods: The authors collected temporal stride kinematics and metabolic data in 8 (experimental group) male runners before and after the ultratrail run and in 6 (control group) male ultramarathon runners who did not run but stayed awake and performed normal, daily physical activities avoiding strenuous exercises over the 6-hour period. For each subject, preferred and optimal stride frequencies were measured, where stride frequency was systematically varied above and below the preferred one (±4% and ±8%) while running 3 conditions on level, 5% uphill, or 5% DR in a randomized order. Results: Preferred and optimal stride frequencies across grade, group, and time showed no significant differences (P ≥ .184). Metabolic cost and the energetically optimum metabolic cost showed a grade × group × time interaction (P ≥ .011), with an ∼11% increase in the 2 variables only during the DR bouts (P ≥ .037). Conclusions: Despite maintaining similar dynamics of stride frequency adjustments during the DR bout, the experimental group was not able to optimize its gait. This suggests that the DR section of ultratrail runs can introduce a perturbing factor in the runners’ optimization process, highlighting the need for incorporating DR bouts in the training programs of ultratrail runners to minimize the deleterious effects of DR on the energetically optimal gait.