TABLE OF CONTENTS
Popular opinion suggests that triathletes should stand at the end of the cycle
portion of a race in an effort to ease the cycle to run transition. Authorities
advise, "During the last couple of miles of the bike portion, it is suggested
to ride out of the saddle to increase the blood flow to your running muscles.
You are in effect simulating the running motion and preparing your legs for
a smooth and fast transition into the running leg of the event" (Hobson,
Campbell, & Vickers, 2001). No empirical evidence of kinematic data exists
in the literature to support this recommendation to the best of our knowledge.
Therefore, the purpose of our study is to compare the kinematics of seated and
standing cycling to the kinematics of running. We will examine the hip, knee,
and ankle joints of the lower body, and we will quantify their changes in position
and velocity with respect to time. We will also determine cycle and running
frequencies.
In order to draw our hypotheses, we will review relevant literature pertaining
to the sports of running and cycling. To begin, running gait begins when one
foot contacts the ground and ends when the same foot contacts the ground again
(Novacheck, 1998). The stance/support phase, starting with heel strike and ending
with toe off, occurs when one foot is in contact with the ground (Adelaar, 1986;
Novacheck, 1998). The float/unsupport phase occurs when the body is in the air
(Adelaar, 1986; Novacheck, 1998). The swing phase, starting with toe off and
ending with heel strike, occurs when the leg is moving through the air (Adelaar,
1986; Novacheck, 1998).
Maximum flexion and extension angles of the lower extremity joints during running
are frequently reported in the literature. For example, hip joint angles in
the literature include 125 degrees maximum flexion during swing phase and 185
degrees maximum extension following toe off (Novacheck, 1998), and maximum flexion
of 136 degrees and maximum extension of 196 degrees (Quigley & Richards,
1996).
Knee joint angles are reported as 90 degrees maximum flexion during swing phase
and 155 degrees maximum extension during toe off (Novacheck, 1998), and maximum
knee flexion of 92.6 degrees and maximum extension of 171.8 degrees (Quigley
& Richards, 1996). Other sources provide average maximum knee flexions of
94.2 degrees (Hausswirth, Bigard, & Guezennec, 1997) and 120 degrees (Herzog,
Guimaraes, Anton, & Carter-Erdman, 1991) during the non-support phase of
running. Another source provides an average peak knee flexion of 133.5 degrees
(Dixon, Collop, & Batt, 2000).
Ankle joint angles are reported as 60 degrees dorsiflexion during stance phase
and 110 degrees maximum plantarflexion just following toe off (Novacheck, 1998),
and maximum dorsiflexion of 67 degrees and maximum plantarflexion of 118.7 degrees
(Quigley & Richards, 1996). Another source reports an average maximum ankle
dorsiflexion of 61.1 degrees (Dixon, Collop, & Batt, 2000).
In regards to cycling, one complete circular motion is called a pedal cycle,
and it consists of a power phase, beginning at top center and ending at bottom
center, and a recovery phase, moving from bottom center to top center (Sanner
& O'Halloran, 2000). Maximum flexion and extension joint angles of the lower
extremity during sitting cycling are commonly described in the literature.
For instance, one source reports that in the early power phase the thigh begins
10-20 degrees below horizontal, the knee is flexed to 110 degrees, and the ankle
is dorsiflexed at 90 degrees (Sanner & O'Halloran, 2000). In the early recovery
phase the thigh is flexed to 50-75 degrees below the horizontal, the knee is
flexed to 50 degrees, and the ankle is moderately plantarflexed (Sanner &
O'Halloran, 2000). Additional joint angles for sitting cycling found in literature
include hip angles of 57 degrees maximum flexion and 97 degrees maximum extension,
knee angles of 77 degrees maximum flexion and 140 degrees maximum extension,
and ankle angles of 100 degrees maximum flexion and 117 degrees maximum extension
(Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li Li, 1999).
Maximum flexion and extension angles of the lower extremity joints during standing
cycling are also reported in the literature, such as hip angles of 86 degrees
maximum flexion and 132 degrees maximum extension, knee angles of 77 degrees
maximum flexion and 157 degrees maximum extension, and ankle angles of 100 degrees
maximum flexion and 128 degrees maximum extension (Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole,
& Li Li, 1999).
Angular velocities of the lower extremity during running reported in the literature
are maximum hip flexion velocity of 175.6 degrees/second and maximum hip extension
velocity of -467.3 degrees/second (Quigley & Richards, 1996). Maximum knee
positive angular velocity is 727.71 degrees/second and maximum knee negative
angular velocity is -601.65 degrees/second (Creagh, Reilly, & Lees, 1998).
Additional maximum knee flexion velocity values are 617.12 degrees/second (Dixon,
Collop, & Batt, 2000) and 703.1 degrees/second (Quigley & Richards,
1996), while maximum knee extension velocity is reported as -421.3 degrees/second
(Quigley & Richards, 1996).
Maximum ankle dorsiflexion is -464.9 degrees/second and maximum plantarflexion
is reported as 873.7 degrees/second (Quigley & Richards, 1996). Another
source reports dorsiflexion and plantarflexion velocity values of 464.13 degrees/second
(Dixon, Collop, & Batt, 2000).
To the best of our knowledge no specific values for angular velocities of the
lower extremity during seated or standing cycling exist in the literature.
Frequencies of all three conditions are commonly reported in the literature.
For example, typical running frequencies include 1.0-1.5 Hz (Millet & Vleck,
1999), 2.78 + 0.05 steps/second or 1.39 + 0.02 Hz (Gottschall & Palmer,
2000), and 181.18 steps/minute or 1.51 Hz (Creagh, Reilly, & Lees, 1998).
Typical seated cycling frequencies are reported as 1.5-2.0 Hz (Millet &
Vleck, 1999), 82 rpm or 2.14 Hz (Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li Li, 1999),
and 85.2+ 9.2 rpm or 2.23 + 0.24 Hz (Marsh & Martin, 1995). Another article
states that a basic rule of cycling is being able to maintain a cadence of at
least 70 rpm and preferably more than 80 rpm for a prolonged period (Sanner
& O'Halloran, 2000). Typical standing cycling frequency is reported as 64
rpm or 1.68 Hz (Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li Li, 1999).
The studies that report hip, knee, and ankle angles include subjects of different
sexes, ages, and training backgrounds. For example, one study used male biathletes
and triathletes (Quigley & Richards, 1996), another used female middle distance
runners (Dixon, Collop, & Batt, 2000), and still another used elite male
cyclists (Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li Li, 1999). In addition, the studies
that reported hip, knee, and ankle angles also included a range of subjects
with different demographic characteristics. While one used male biathletes and
triathletes (Quigley & Richards, 1996), another used female runners in their
study (Creagh, Reilly, & Lees, 1998). Finally, the studies that reported
running, standing cycling, and seated cycling frequencies also used different
types of participants. For example, while one study used male cyclists (Marsh
& Martin, 1995), another used male and female elite and junior triathletes
(Millet & Vleck, 1999).
The studies that we reviewed to obtain lower extremity angles, velocities, and
frequencies utilized participants with varying characteristics. Therefore, comparing
the running, seated cycling, and standing cycling angles, velocities, and frequencies
cited in this literature review in an effort to determine whether standing cycling
is more similar to running than is seated cycling will yield inappropriate conclusions.
Since no one study has compared the kinematics of running, standing cycling,
and seated cycling to the best of our knowledge, our study aims to analyze joint
angles, velocities, and frequencies during the three different activities to
determine if scientific evidence supports popular opinion.
The literature often reports that changes in seat height or seat tube angles
lead to alterations in body position, which lead to changes in lower extremity
kinematics. One study reports that differences in cycling performances can be
attributed to joint angle changes resulting from alterations in seat height
(Too & Landwer, 2000). Adjusting the bike setting to have a higher seat
height and a more forward seat tube angle causes a change in the body position
from seated cycling to emulate standing cycling to a greater degree.
Many studies provide evidence that the posture adopted with a higher seat height
and a more forward seat tube angle also resembles posture adopted during running.
For example, one study specifically states that cyclists prefer a higher seat
position because it more resembles a walking or running posture (Sanner &
O'Halloran, 2000). An article concerning seat tube angles states that the further
forward the seat tube angle is set, the more similar the body posture is to
running, and they go on to claim that adopting this seat tube angle will minimize
muscle recruitment alterations and ease the transition of cycling to running
(Garside & Doran, 2000).
The findings in the literature state that the body position of a cyclist using a higher seat height and a more forward seat tube angle, which resembles standing cycling, emulates the body position of a runner. Therefore, we hypothesize that the kinematics of standing cycling, including hip, knee, and ankle angles and velocities, along with frequencies, should be more similar to running than the kinematics of seated cycling.
In order to gather kinematic data, a participant with experience
in running and cycling was recruited. The participant was a male, age 42, with
a height of six feet and a weight of 153 pounds. His race history within the
last year include one triathlon (40 mile bike, 12 mile canoe, 13 mile run) and
three 10K, one 12K, and four 5K running races. His weekly training schedule
includes running 35 miles, biking 60 miles, and swimming 3,000 yards.
During the filming, the subject performed at an RPE of 16 to simulate the intensity
of race pace. To gather cycling data a spinning bike was set up so that the
subject's left side was filmed in the sagittal plane. The video camera was aligned
perpendicularly to this field of view at a distance of 15 feet away from the
bike. The camera was 66 centimeters above the ground to capture the lower extremities
of the subject and the entire range of motion. It was leveled side-to-side and
front-to-back, locked into place, and the shutter speed was set at 1/60th of
a second.
A reference scale of 0.9 meters was placed in the field of view. Additional
lighting was placed behind the camera and pointed towards the action as the
filming took place indoors. Joint markers of different sizes and contrasting
colors were placed at the trunk, the greater trochanter, the lateral condyle,
the lateral malleolus, and the fifth metatarsal in order to obtain hip, knee,
and ankle angles (Figure 1).
The subject was also outfitted with a heart rate monitor.
After the subject positioned himself on the bike, the camera was auto focused
at the place of action and manually focused on the subject ensuring that all
body markers were visible. First the subject was taped while cycling sitting
down for two minutes at an RPE of 16 and heart rate readings were taken at minutes
one and two. The subject then transitioned into standing cycling for another
two minutes at an RPE of 16. Heart rate readings were again taken at minutes
one and two.
The next portion of the trials involved filming the subject running on the treadmill.
The camera was set up to film the subject's left side in the sagittal plane.
The video camera was then aligned perpendicularly to this field of view at a
distance of 12.5 feet away from the treadmill. The camera was 89 centimeters
above the ground to capture the lower extremities of the subject and the entire
range of motion. It was leveled side-to-side and front-to-back, locked into
place, and the shutter speed was set at 1/60th of a second.
A reference scale of 0.9 meters was placed in the field of view. Additional
lighting was placed behind the camera and pointed towards the action as the
filming took place indoors. Joint markers and the heart rate monitor remained
intact during the filming. Again the subject was filmed running for 2 minutes
at an RPE of 16, and heart rate readings were taken at one and two minutes.
The video was captured using the "Shortcut to Video Capture" program.
Approximately 5 seconds of each condition was captured and made into an ".avi"
file. Video editing was done using the Premiere 4.0 program. Each ".avi"
file was trimmed to allow for one revolution on the bike and one stride in running
with three frames before and after the desired action. The clips were finalized
into movie ".avi" files.
The movies were digitized at thirty frames per second using the Video Expert
program. Specific points that were used in every frame were the trunk, hip,
knee, ankle, and fifth metatarsal in the sagittal plane. Finally the "x"
and "y" coordinates that were obtained from digitizing were imported
to Microsoft Excel where joint angles, velocities, and accelerations were obtained.
One complete period of seated cycling, standing cycling, and running was analyzed to determine joint angle positions, joint angular velocities, and frequencies of the movements. Joint angles and velocities for the knee, hip, and ankle were graphed as a function of the percent of the period of movement.
Heart Rate and Frequency
Table 1 lists the
average heart rate for each condition, and the calculated frequency of each
condition.
Joint Angle Measurements
Knee
In all three conditions, the knee joint angle exhibits the same basic
trend of beginning at greatest knee extension, moving to greatest knee flexion,
and ending in greatest knee extension again. The seated cycle condition had
a smoother transition through the angles than the running and standing cycle
conditions. The seated knee angle moved from 146.5 deg to 69.2 deg and back
to 148. 3 deg. The range of motion of the knee during seated cycling was 78.1
deg. The other two conditions of standing cycle and running did not have as
smooth an arc of joint angles as the seated cycle condition. Within their transitions
were multiple smaller peaks and troughs. The range of motion for standing cycling
was 92.3 deg. It began at 160.7 deg, flexed to 74.1 deg, and extended again
to 159.4 deg. The run condition began with an extended knee angle of 166.5 deg,
maximally flexed to 78.3 deg, and ended in an extended position of 158.9 deg.
The range of motion of the knee during running was 82.5 deg (Figure
2a, Table 2).
Hip
Both cycle conditions followed the same general trend of beginning in
maximum hip extension, moving toward maximum hip flexion, and then moving back
to maximum hip extension. Specifically, the seated cycle condition began at
a maximum extension of 139.5 deg, flexed to 86.6 deg, and extended again to
126.9 deg. The hip achieved a range of motion of 43.9 deg during seated cycling.
The standing cycle condition began maximally extended at 130.8 deg, flexed to
91.3 deg, and then extended again to 125.8 deg. The hip achieved a range of
motion of 39.0 deg during standing cycling (Figure
2b, Table 2).
The run condition is characterized by two hip extension peaks with a small flexion
trough in between. The sequence of run hip joint angles was an initial angle
of 140.8 deg that extended to the first peak angle of 190.9 deg, followed by
flexion to 131.5 deg, which then extended again to the second peak angle of
162.1 deg. The hip finally moved through more flexion ending at an angle of
148.6 deg. The hip achieved a range of motion of 54.9 deg during running (Figure
2b, Table 2).
Ankle
Again, both cycle conditions followed the same general trend and exhibited
a wavelike pattern of peaks and troughs throughout the ankle joint angle measurements
with greater plantarflexion crests in the beginning of the period followed by
a dip in extension measures, or more dorsiflexion angle measurements in the
second half of the period. Specifically, the standing cycle condition reached
a maximum plantarflexion angle of 141.1 deg in the first half of the movement
and a maximum dorsiflexion angle of 96.4 deg in the second half of the movement.
The ankle obtained a range of motion of 44.7 deg. In the seated cycle condition,
a maximum plantarflexion angle of 124.3 deg was observed in the first half of
the movement, which was followed by a maximum dorsiflexion angle of 94.7 deg
in the second half of the movement. The range of motion of the ankle during
seated cycling was 29.6 deg (Figure
2c, Table 2).
Once more the run condition ankle joint measurements followed an independent
trend. Rather than showing plantarflexion followed by dorsiflexion in small
wave increments as did the cycle conditions, the run condition exhibited a more
definite peak and valley pattern of a dorsiflexion valley followed by a plantarflexion
peak. It ended in a major dorsiflexion drop that worked its way back to plantarflexion.
Specifically, the ankle began to plantarflex at 117.1 deg, dorsiflexed down
to 96.2 deg, plantarflexed back to 135.3 deg, and then dorsiflexed to 53.3 deg.
The range of motion of the ankle during running was 82.0 deg (Figure
2c, Table 2).
Joint Angular Velocities
Knee
The run and standing cycling conditions followed the same trend of having
multiple velocity peaks, whereas seated cycle exhibited a single wave pattern.
The seated condition began with a -91.7 deg/s velocity, dipped to -362.8 deg/s,
climbed to 334.9 deg/s, and finished at 81.9 deg/s. Standing cycle velocity
began at 72.4 deg/s, dropped to -406.3 deg/s, showed two dramatic peak velocities
of 539.1 deg/s and 487.3 deg/s, and finally ended with a velocity of 108.1 deg/s.
In the running condition, initial velocity was -228.4 deg/s, it dropped to -402.7
deg/s, increased to its first peak velocity of 206.5 deg/s, dropped again to
-323.7 deg/s, and then reached a second peak velocity of 664.4 deg/s before
finally ending with a velocity of -164.8 deg/s (Figure
3a, Table 3).
Hip
The two cycle conditions exhibited similar behaviors in that they oscillated
through the same velocities throughout the movement. Hip angular velocities
in the run condition, however, underwent dramatic changes in the first half
of the movement. In the seated cycle condition, hip velocity for the first .4
s remained in the range of approximately -42 deg/s to approximately -204 deg/s,
then at .4 s the velocities increased to 152.2 deg/s and remained in the range
of 68.4 deg/s to 212 deg/s for the remainder of the movement. The stand cycle
condition followed a wavelike pattern with small, random waves remaining in
the range of -230.7 deg/s to 245 deg/s. Finally, the run condition angular velocities
experienced great changes in the first .23 s, ranging from -2306.7 deg/s, up
to 2256.9 deg/s, and then back to -402.6 deg/s. For the remainder of the period,
hip angular velocities remained in the range of 326.4 deg/s to -229.3 deg/s
(Figure 3b, Table
3).
Ankle
In terms of ankle angular velocities, all three conditions exhibited
oscillations throughout the movement. Both cycle conditions had smaller and
more frequent changes in ankle angular velocities, whereas the run condition
demonstrated three exaggerated changes in direction of the velocities. The seated
cycle condition angular velocities fluctuated within the range of -199.2 deg/s
and 176.6 deg/s. The stand cycle condition vacillated through a greater range
of -319.7 deg/s and 227.4 deg/s. The run condition initially began by dipping
down to -260.7 deg/s, shot up to a peak of 510.7 deg/s, dropped again to -760.7
deg/s, peaked again at 904.7 deg/s, and then smoothed out to a range of 91.3
deg/s and -104.3 deg/s (Figure
3c, Table 3).
In
this study we conclude that running is kinematically more similar to standing
cycling than seated cycling. Results supporting this conclusion include joint
angle measurements, knee angular velocities, and condition frequencies.
Concerning joint angle measurements, the run knee maximum and minimum joint
angle measures resemble standing cycling maximum and minimum knee joint angle
measures more than they do seated cycling maximum and minimum knee joint angle
measures (Table 2). Minimum hip joint angle measures are more similar between
running and standing cycling than between running and seated cycling (Table
2). Maximum ankle joint measures are also more similar between running and standing
cycling than between running and seated cycling (Table 2).
Concerning joint angular velocities, the run knee maximum and minimum negative
and positive angular velocities are more similar to standing cycling maximum
and minimum negative and positive velocities than to seated cycling maximum
and minimum negative and positive velocities (Table 3). Finally, the run frequency
is closer in value to standing cycling than to seated cycling (Table 1).
The ranges of motions found for the lower extremity joints in each of the conditions
do not, however, support our conclusion (Table 2). We postulate that this is
due to the fact that running generally has a free range of motion while cyclists
clip into the bike so that their range of motion is limited. A decreased range
of motion may also help to explain why some of the running and standing cycling
joint angles are not more similar than running and seated cycling joint angles.
In this study, it could not be concluded that the hip maximum joint angle and
the ankle minimum joint angle (Table 2) are more similar between running and
standing cycling than between running and seated cycling because the standing
cycling and seated cycling joint angles in both cases were so close in value
that they were essentially the same. Thus, one is not more similar to running
than the other.
Additional explanations offering support for the concept that standing cycling
is more comparable to running than seated cycling involve more similar exercise
intensities, more similar muscular activity and force production, and finally
more similar frequencies.
Heart Rate
In this investigation and in the literature, exercise intensity, measured by
heart rate, is more similar between running conditions and standing cycling
than between running conditions and seated cycling. In the present study, seated
cycling heart rate is significantly lower than running heart rate and standing
cycling heart rate, but standing cycling heart rate is not significantly different
from running heart rate (Table 1).
Accordingly, in a study of seven professional cyclists comparing heart rates
during the three main competition phases in stage races including flat stages,
time trials, and high mountains stages, the heart rates between flat stages
and high mountain stages were significantly different. These stages were chosen
for comparison because they are most applicable to the present study, in that
the cycling in the flat stages is fast and level, such as the seated cycle portion,
whereas the high mountain stage cycling is uphill climbing that requires a large
degree of out of saddle pedaling, which is similar to the stand cycle condition.
Flat terrain heart rates were 124 +/-2 bpm, and high mountain heart rates were
157+/-4 bpm (Lucía, Hoyos, & Chicarro, 2001).
In another study comparing heart rates of standing cycling to seated cycling,
10 bicycle racers from a local racing club were tested, and again it was found
that standing heart rate, 137 +/- 5 bpm, was significantly different from seated
cycling heart rate, 127 +/- 4 bpm (Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen, 1991). Both
of these studies lend support to the idea that there is a significant difference
in exercise intensity between seated and standing cycling as is found in the
present study.
Expanding on this conclusion, if one of these exercise intensities, standing
or seated, is more similar to a run exercise intensity, then it could be extrapolated
that performing a certain cycle condition will more prepare a triathlete for
the run portion of a race by matching the exercise intensity of running. In
a study that had 7 triathletes perform three experimental trials which involved
completing a 2 hr 15 min simulated triathlon, a 2 hr 15 min marathon with the
last 45 min of the run at the same speed as a triathlon race pace and, a 45
min isolated run at triathlon race pace, heart rate was recorded for each condition.
Isolated run heart rates are the only data cited here, for in the present study
only separate trials of running and cycling are applicable, not data illustrating
the effect of one on the other. Isolated run heart rates were 147 +/- 13.3 bpm
(at 2-5 min), 151 +/- 13.1 bpm (at 15-22 min), and 154 +/- 13.5 bpm (at 35-42
min), (Hausswirth, Bigard, & Guezennec, 1997). All of these numbers are
significantly different from the seated cycling heart rates cited earlier, but
they are not significantly different from standing cycle heart rates cited earlier.
Thus, the literature credits the data gathered in this study by demonstrating
that running heart rates are significantly different from seated cycling heart
rates but not from standing cycling heart rates. One strategy to more prepare
a triathlete for the run portion of a race is to have the triathlete perform
standing cycling before running to mimic the different exercise intensity of
running. It should be noted that the numbers collected in the present study
are from one subject and thus do not represent a normal distribution. They can,
however, be applied to numbers found in other studies as the heart rate values
in the present study and in the literature can support one another in general
ideas and concepts.
Muscle Activity and Force Production
In all three investigated conditions of seated cycling, standing cycling, and
running, the same muscles of the lower extremities are used: hip extensors,
gluteal muscles, quadriceps, hamstrings, gastrocnemius, soleus, and the anterior
tibialis (Sanner & O'Halloran, 2000; Novacheck, 1998; Adelaar, 1986). Differences
do exist, however, in the way these muscles are used. First of all, some researchers
observed that more muscular activity occurs in standing cycling versus seated
cycling (Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen, 1991). They speculate that this increased
activity is due to a need for torso stabilization and to guide the bike in a
side-to-side rocking motion, which often occurs in standing cycling. By recruiting
more muscles of the upper body we suggest that standing cycling is more like
running because running demands the use of upper body muscles such as those
used in arm swinging, balance, and stabilization.
Another muscular difference is that cycling is characterized as concentric and
nonweight-bearing, whereas running is characterized as being largely eccentric
and weight-bearing (Quigley & Richards, 1996). This difference elicits a
discussion of the forces involved. The literature repeatedly reports that the
ground reaction forces (GRFs) in running are 2-3 times the body weight (Quigley
& Richards, 1996; Novacheck, 1998; Dixon, Collop, & Batt, 2000). Also,
several sources report that in standing cycling, normal forces 2-3 times body
weight are generated because the rider transitions from seated cycling, a non
weight-bearing activity, to standing on the pedals, a weight-bearing activity
(Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen, 1991; Caldwell, Li Li, McCole, & Hagberg,
1998; Millet & Vleck, 1999).
In connection with the forces involved, it could be suggested that perhaps there
is also more eccentric contraction in standing cycling because force generation
is greater. One of the means to increase force generation is the stretch-shorten
cycle, or eccentric contractions directly preceding concentric contractions.
Therefore, the greater forces generated in standing cycling could result from
having to supporting body weight and from a larger eccentric component. Both
of these qualities make standing cycling more similar to running, and they give
support to the idea that triathletes can prepare their bodies for the run portion
of a race by subjecting their bodies to the forces and muscle activity that
will be expected in the run by standing at the end of the cycle portion of a
race.
Frequencies
In this study, run frequency was found to be 1.37 Hz, standing cycling frequency
was found to be 1.25 Hz, and seated cycling was found to be 1.52 Hz (Table 1).
The major trend in this study is that standing and seated cycling frequencies
differ through a wide range, and in the case of this study, run frequency is
closer in value to standing cycling than seated cycling.
The literature reports running frequencies ranging from approximately 1.0 to
1.5 Hz (Millet & Vleck, 1999; Gottschall & Palmer, 2000; Creagh, Reilly,
& Lees, 1998), standing cycling frequencies of approximately 1.68 Hz (Caldwell,
Hagberg, McCole, & Li Li, 1999), and seated cycling frequencies of approximately
1.5 to 2.5 Hz (Millet & Vleck, 1999; Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li
Li, 1999; Marsh & Martin, 1995). The range of frequencies for seated cycling
extends higher than the range of frequencies for standing cycling and for running.
Running frequencies and standing cycling frequencies are both slower than seated
cycling frequencies based on the literature and results obtained in this study.
Therefore, one could argue that a triathlete could more prepare their body for
the run portion of the race by standing while cycling at the end of the cycle
portion based on the fact that standing cycling frequencies are more similar
to run frequencies than seated cycling frequencies are to run frequencies. When
the athlete stands up on the bike, he slows the cadence of his legs and better
prepares his legs in muscle and neural activity for the rhythm of running.
In summary, based on the kinematic results of this study, including the maximum
and minimum knee joint angles, minimum hip joint angles, maximum ankle joint
angles, maximum and minimum negative and positive knee angular velocities, and
condition frequencies, we conclude that standing cycling is kinematically more
similar to running than seated cycling. In addition, literature pertaining to
exercise intensity, muscle activity and force, and condition frequencies lends
further support to our conclusion that standing cycling is kinematically more
similar to running than seated cycling.
Adelaar, R. S. (1986). The practical biomechanics of running. The American
Journal
of Sports Medicine, 14, 497-500.
Caldwell, G.E., Hagberg, J.M., McCole, S.D., and Li Li. (1999). Lower extremity
joint
movements during uphill cycling. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 15, 166-181.
Caldwell, G.E., Li Li, McCole, S.D., and Hagberg, J.M. (1998). Pedal and crank
kinetics
in uphill cycling. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14, 245-159.
Creagh, U., Reilly, T., and Lees, A. (1998). Kinematics of running on "off-road"
terrain.
Ergonomics, 41, 1029-1033.
Dixon, S.J., Collop, A.C., and Batt, M.E. (2000). Surface effects on ground
reaction
forces and lower extremity kinematics in running. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 32, 1919-1926.
Garside, I. and Doran, D.A. (2000). Effects of bicycle frame ergonomics on triathlon
10-km running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 825-833.
Gottschall, J.S. and Palmer, B.M. (2000). Acute effects of cycling on running
step length
and step frequency. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 97-101.
Hausswirth, C., Bigard, A.X., and Guezennec, C.Y. (1997). Relationships between
running mechanics and energy cost of running at the end of a triathlon and a
marathon. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 18, 330-339.
Herzog, W., Guimaraes, A.C., Anton, M.G., and Carter-Erdman, K.A. (1991). Moment-
length relations of rectus femoris muscles of speed skaters/cyclists and runners.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, 1289-1296.
Hobson, W., Campbell, C., and Vickers, M. (2001). Swim. Bike. Run. Champaign,
IL:
Human Kinetics, p.120.
Lucía, A., Hoyos, J., and Chicharro, J.L. (2001). Preferred pedaling
cadence in
professional cycling. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33, 1361-1366.
Marsh, A.P., and Martin, P.E. (1995). The relationship between cadence and lower
extremity EMG in cyclists and noncyclists. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 27, 217-225.
Millet, G.P., and Vleck, V.E. (1999). Physiological and biomechanical adaptations
to the
cycle to run transition in Olympic triathlon: review and practical
recommendations for training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 384-390.
Novacheck, T.F. (1998). The biomechanics of running. Gait and Posture, 7, 77-95.
Quigley, E.J. and Richards, J.G. (1996). The effects of cycling on running mechanics.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12, 470-479.
Ryschon, T.W. and Stray-Gundersen, J. (1991). The effect of body position on
the energy
cost of cycling. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, 949-953.
Sanner, W.H. and O'Halloran, W.D. (2000). The biomechanics, etiology, and treatment
of cycling injuries. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association,
90,
354-376.
Too, D. and Landwer, G.E. (2000). The effect of pedal crank arm length on joint
angle
and power production in upright cycle ergometry. Journal of Sports Sciences,
18, 153-161.