Within-cycle characteristics of the wheelchair push in sprinting on a wheelchair ergometer

Veeger, H.E.J.; Woude, L.H.V. van der; Rozendal, R. H.

doi:10.1249/00005768-199102000-00019

Cited by 61 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In part, this may be due to a lower resistive load in our overground-sprint test compared with the body-mass standardized load in the Wingate test. Regardless of fitness level, power output outcomes seem to be lower in wheelchair sprint tests with less resistive load (25,31). P5-15m has only been determined in novice able-bodied people (mean 38.1 W) (25), and was much higher than found in the groups with paraplegia and tetraplegia in our study (approximately 2-4 times, respectively).…”

Section: Description Of Wheelchair-specific Fitnesscontrasting

confidence: 68%

Wheelchair-specific fitness of inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury

Scheer¹,

Groot²,

Tepper³

et al. 2015

J Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe wheelchair-specific anaerobic work capacity, isometric strength and peak aerobic work capacity of physically inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury using outcomes of tests that are feasible for use in rehabilitation centres, and to determine associations among these fitness components. Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: Manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury for at least 10 years, who were inactive based on a norm score of a physical activity questionnaire (n = 29; 22 men; 20 with paraplegia; median age 53 years). Methods: Participants performed 3 exercise tests in their own wheelchair to determine: highest 5-s power output over 15-m overground sprinting (P5-15m); highest 3-s isometric push-force (Fiso); and peak power output (POpeak) and peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak) over a peak test. Conclusion: All fitness components measured in this sample were at relatively low levels, implying a specific need for interventions to improve wheelchair-specific fitness. The weak-to-moderate associations among components imply that separate tests should be used when monitoring wheelchair-specific fitness in rehabilitation centres.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Wheelchair-specific Fitnesscontrasting

confidence: 68%

Wheelchair-specific fitness of inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury

Scheer¹,

Groot²,

Tepper³

et al. 2015

J Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, the resultant braking force is resumed to the rolling and friction torques. On wheelchair simulators, since the wheels have no contact with the ground, the rolling torques of the tires on the floor is simulated by a resistance applied on the rear wheels axle and chosen by the clinician [7,8]. On treadmills, the rolling and friction torques are globally determined from a drag test [9,10]: a force sensor is mounted on a cable binding the wheelchair to the treadmill frame, in order to measure the drag force when the treadmill is functioning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drag force mechanical power during an actual propulsion cycle on a manual wheelchair

Sauret

Vaslin

Dabonneville

et al. 2009

IRBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revue IRBM : http://www.em-consulte.com/revue/irbm/International audienceThe object of this study was to compute the mechanical power of the resultant braking force during an actual propulsion cycle with a manual wheelchair on the field. The resultant braking force was calculated from a mechanical model taking into account the rolling resistances of the front and rear wheels. Both the resultant braking force and the wheelchair velocity were not constant during the propulsion cycle and varied according to the subject's fore-and-aft and vertical movements in the wheelchair. These variations had logical repercussions on the braking force mechanical power, which ranged from 20.6 to 34.5 W (mean = 29.6 W) during the propulsion cycle. The mechanical power was also calculated from the conditions of a classical drag-test, by the product of the cycle mean velocity and a constant braking force corresponding to a 60 % rear wheels distribution of the subject-and- wheelchair's weight. This second mechanical power (32.4 W) was 10 % higher than the average of the instantaneous power. Beyond the need of a clear definition of the two phases of the propulsion cycle, this study showed that the assumption on wheelchair locomotion usually admitted on laboratory ergometers cannot be applied in field studies, and that the kinetic energy variations during the cycle propulsive phase should be considered for evaluating the subject's mechanical work and power

show abstract

“…Modeling results reported by these authors indicated that the largest joint torques are produced around the shoulder complex. These authors reported peak shoulder flexion torques of 35 Nm, in combination with peak adduction torques of 20 Nm [23]. Peak elbow extension torques were 10 Nm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Energy Expenditure of Two Types of Manual Wheelchair Propulsion

Sarraj¹,

Massarelli²,

Rigal³

et al. 2008

TOREHJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Within-cycle characteristics of the wheelchair push in sprinting on a wheelchair ergometer

Cited by 61 publications

References 0 publications

Wheelchair-specific fitness of inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury

Wheelchair-specific fitness of inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury

Drag force mechanical power during an actual propulsion cycle on a manual wheelchair

Energy Expenditure of Two Types of Manual Wheelchair Propulsion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About