Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Gross Efficiency Is Improved in Standing Position With An Increase of The Power Output

    Uploaded by

    CristianLopez
    Congreso Int. Ciclismo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gross Efficiency Is Improved in Standing Position With An Increase of The Power Output

    Uploaded by

    CristianLopez
    10 views1 page
    Congreso Int. Ciclismo

    Original Title

    6

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Congreso Int. Ciclismo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    10 views1 page

    Gross Efficiency Is Improved in Standing Position With An Increase of The Power Output

    Uploaded by

    CristianLopez
    Congreso Int. Ciclismo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    2nd World Congress of Cycling Science, 2nd and 3rd July 2014, Leeds

    J Sci Cycling. Vol. 3(2), 6

    BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

    Open Access

    Gross efficiency is improved in standing


    position with an increase of the power output
    A Bouillod , J Pinot
    1

    1, 2

    A Valade J Cassirame G Soto-Romero and F Grappe

    1, 2

    Abstract
    Background: Gross efficiency (GE) has been shown to be one of the most relevant parameter influencing cycling
    performance but to the best of our knowledge, just one study focused on measuring GE in seated and standing
    positions during field conditions (Millet et al., 2002: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 34(10), 1645-52).
    Other authors investigated the effects of change in body position (seated vs. standing) on energy expenditure, heart
    rate (HR) or pulmonary ventilation (VE) but there were large changes in the results (Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen,
    1991: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 23, 949-953; Swain & Wilcox, 1992: Medicine & Science in Sports &
    Exercise, 24, 1123-1127) due to the different protocols. Indeed, the cross effect of slope and intensity on GE in
    standing compared to seated position has not been studied. Thus, we found interesting to measure GE in real
    locomotion with elite cyclists at different intensities and slopes.
    Purpose: This study was designed to examine the effects of standing position on GE compared to seated position at
    different intensities and slopes.
    Methods: After a period of familiarisation, 13 elite participants performed on a motorised treadmill with their own bike
    one session during which they rode in a randomized order seated vs. standing positions with several slopes (5, 7.5
    -1
    and 10%) and intensities (3.8, 4.2 and 4.6 W.kg ). GE was calculated for each condition using the ratio of power
    output (PO) measured with a Powertap G3 hub (CycleOps, Madison, USA) and the oxygen uptake (VO2) measured
    with a portable gas analyzer (Metamax 3B, Cortex, Leipzig, Germany).
    Results: GE was significantly higher (+4.5%) in standing position (21.5 5.2 %, CV = 5.2%) compared to seated
    position (20.6 1.1 %, CV = 5.5%) for all the intensities and slopes. This improvement was due to a significant (p <
    0.001) increase of PO in standing position (+4.5%) associated with a stabilization of VO2. The more the slope was
    low and the intensity was high, the more the pedaling cadence was high. That leads to higher PO changes between
    standing and seated positions (R = 0.93, p < 0.001) (Figure 1).
    Discussion: The main finding of this study shows that in standing position, GE was increased from a higher PO. The
    non-significant increase in VO2 is in accordance with the previous results of Millet et al. (2002). It's the first time that
    a study shows an increase in PO in standing position. The difference in PO is linked to an increase of the pedaling
    cadence. We hypothesize that the increase in PO is due to the technique adopted in standing position, the latter has
    an impact on the mechanical deformation both of the tires and the bike frame. The loss of energy in the bike and the
    tires would require to increase the PO in standing position according to the technique of each cyclist.
    Conclusion: Despite a significant decrease of GE, the standing position involves a significant increase in PO
    probably due to an increase of the deformation of both the tires and the bike frame according to the pedaling
    techniques of the cyclist.

    Contact email: anthonybouillod@gmail.com (A.


    Bouillod)
    1

    EA4660, C3S Health - Sport Department, Sports University,


    Besancon, France.
    2

    Professional Cycling Team FDJ.fr

    LAAS-CNRS, Toulouse, France

    __________________________________________________
    Received: 1 May 2014. Accepted: 1 June 2014.

    2014 2nd World Congress of Cycling Science, 2nd and 3rd July 2014, Leedst; licensee JSC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the
    terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
    reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    You might also like