Biophysical Aspects of Submaximal Hand Cycling

Abstract

Hand cycling is a popular form of wheeled mobility. This study evaluates biophysical differences between synchronous/asynchronous hand cycling. During submaximal hand cycling on a motor driven treadmill, 9 able-bodied subjects performed 2 series of 4 steady state exercise bouts at 1.11 to 2.78 m/s. Metabolic parameters, mean force on the handle bar, muscle activity and local perceived exertion in the upper body were determined. Mean power output was 35.4 +/- 7 W (v = 2.78 m/s). At this speed oxygen uptake was 1.11 +/- 0.25 and 1.26 +/- 0.26 l/min for the synchronous and asynchronous modes, respectively. Mechanical efficiency was significantly higher (v = 2.78 m/s: + 11.5 %) in synchronous cycling. Higher activity of m. obliquus externus and extensor carpi ulnaris was seen. Mean 2D total force and fraction effective force on the handle bar were lower in asynchronous hand cycling. Local perceived discomfort was higher in the asynchronous mode for different arm regions. Synchronous hand cycling is more efficient and at a lower metabolic cost. Mean muscle activation and the local perceived discomfort may explain some results. Future study should focus on combined time-based force and muscle activity characteristics. Synchronous hand cycling should be preferred during submaximal exercise in early rehabilitation.

A Biomechanical Analysis of Handcycling: A Case Study

“…In addition, using the variation coefficient-which is considered as a key parameter in assessing the efficiency of cyclic movement such as cycling (Caldwell et al, 1998) or handcycling (Verellen et al, 2004b;Bafghi et al, 2008)-we considered the reproducibility of the force pattern as consistent given VC is equal to 11% for FEF 2D . Such finding is in line with the literature (Verellen et al, 2004b).…”

Physical strain of handcycling: An evaluation using training guidelines for a healthy lifestyle as defined by the American College of Sports Medicine

“…This method was used in handcycling by Abbasi Bafghi in 2007. 29 Subjects were asked to rate their perceived discomfort for the 20 upper-body regions on a scale of 0 to 10 (no discomfort = 0, moderate discomfort = 4, high discomfort = 7, extreme discomfort = 10) and summed to a total LPD-score, with a maximum summed score of 200. The sub-totals for hands, lower extremities, upper extremities, shoulder region (left + right + back + front) and neck/back/belly/ chest were summed as well, resulting in 5 sub-scores with a maximum possible score of 40.…”

Submaximal arm crank ergometry: Effects of crank axis positioning on mechanical efficiency, physiological strain and perceived discomfort

“…Besides, in most of these studies a mixture of outcome measures like mechanical efficiency (ME), oxygen uptake, respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and heart rate were used. These variables deal with the cardio-respiratory strain, but psycho-physiological parameters, such as local perceived discomfort and perceived exertion, have hardly been investigated in arm crank ergometry [24,25] or hand cycling [10,26]. Local perceived discomfort is described as tension, fatigue, soreness, heat, tremor and pain which might be caused by musculoskeletal structures [27] and is a common measure in ergonomics studies [28].…”