Effects of type and mode of propulsion on hand-cycling biomechanics in nondisabled subjects

Faupin, Arnaud; Gorce, Philippe; Meyer, Christophe

doi:10.1682/jrrd.2010.19.0199

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 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

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

show abstract

“…In a more biomechanical approach with a handcycle-ergometer set-up, Faupin et al (2011) found more range of motion of the trunk, shoulder and elbow in the asynchronous mode. The torque produced in the synchronous mode was significantly lower during the pull phase and significantly higher during the push up than during asynchronous handcycling, indicating a different propulsion style between modes [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Biomechanical and physiological differences between synchronous and asynchronous low intensity handcycling during practice-based learning in able-bodied men

Kraaijenbrink

Vegter

Hensen

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Originally, the cranks of a handcycle were mounted with a 180°phase shift (asynchronous). However, as handcycling became more popular, the crank mode switched to a parallel mounting (synchronous) over the years. Differences between both modes have been investigated, however, not into great detail for propulsion technique or practice effects. Our aim is to compare both crank modes from a biomechanical and physiological perspective, hence considering force and power production as a cause of physiological outcome measures. This is done within a practice protocol, as it is expected that motor learning takes place in the early stages of handcycling in novices. Methods: Twelve able-bodied male novices volunteered to take part. The experiment consisted of a pre-test, three practice sessions and a post-test, which was subsequently repeated for both crank modes in a counterbalanced manner. In each session the participants handcycled for 3 × 4 minutes on a leveled motorized treadmill at 1.94 m/s. Inbetween sessions were 2 days of rest. 3D forces, handlebar and crank angle were measured on the left hand side. Kinematic markers were placed on the handcycle to monitor the movement on the treadmill. Lastly, breath-bybreath spirometry combined with heart-rate were continuously measured. The effects of crank mode and practicebased learning were analyzed using a two way repeated measures ANOVA, with synchronous vs asynchronous and pre-test vs post-test as within-subject factors. Results: In the pre-test, asynchronous handcycling was less efficient than synchronous handcycling in terms of physiological strain, force production and timing. At the post-test, the metabolic costs were comparable for both modes. The force production was, also after practice, more efficient in the synchronous mode. External power production, crank rotation velocity and the distance travelled back and forwards on the treadmill suggest that asynchronous handcycling is more constant throughout the cycle.

show abstract

“…it is easier to steer when moving the arms symmetrically (van der Woude et al 2000). Related is also that trunk muscle activity is increased and more continuous during asymmetrical compared to symmetrical handcycling, resulting in higher rotation and lateral flexion of the trunk to propel and stabilize the participant and the steering Faupin et al 2011). This increase in muscle activity to stabilize steering direction appears to increase the energy cost during asymmetrical handcycling (Dallmeijer et al 2004; van der Woude et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating arms and legs on a hybrid rehabilitation tricycle: the metabolic benefit of asymmetrical compared to symmetrical arm movements

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results indicated that asymmetrical arm movements, especially in combination with leg movements, represented the most efficient condition on a stationary hybrid handcycle. The current results suggest that neural energy costs are lower when moving in the preferred (asymmetrical) coordination when no steering is required. These findings may have implications for stationary arm & leg cycling rehabilitation and tricycle adaptations in patients with spinal cord injury.

show abstract

Effects of type and mode of propulsion on hand-cycling biomechanics in nondisabled subjects

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

Biomechanical and physiological differences between synchronous and asynchronous low intensity handcycling during practice-based learning in able-bodied men

Coordinating arms and legs on a hybrid rehabilitation tricycle: the metabolic benefit of asymmetrical compared to symmetrical arm movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About