Display options
Cite
Kraaijenbrink C, Vegter RJK, Ostertag N, et al. Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:741258doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.741258.
Kraaijenbrink, C., Vegter, R. J. K., Ostertag, N., Janssens, L., Vanlandewijck, Y., van der Woude, L. H. V., & Wagner, H. (2021). Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men. Frontiers in sports and active living, 3741258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.741258
Kraaijenbrink, Cassandra, et al. "Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men." Frontiers in sports and active living vol. 3 (2021): 741258. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.741258
Kraaijenbrink C, Vegter RJK, Ostertag N, Janssens L, Vanlandewijck Y, van der Woude LHV, Wagner H. Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men. Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Oct 25;3:741258. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.741258. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34761216; PMCID: PMC8572844.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Oct 25;3:741258. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.741258. eCollection 2021.

Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men.

Frontiers in sports and active living

Cassandra Kraaijenbrink, Riemer J K Vegter, Nils Ostertag, Luc Janssens, Yves Vanlandewijck, Lucas H V van der Woude, Heiko Wagner

Affiliations

  1. Department of Movement Science, Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
  2. Department of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
  3. Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport, School of Sport, Exercise and Health, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
  4. Electrical Engineering (ESAT) TC, Campus Group T Leuven, KULeuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  5. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, KULeuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  6. Department of Physiology, Nutrition and Biomechanics, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), Stockholm, Sweden.
  7. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

PMID: 34761216 PMCID: PMC8572844 DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2021.741258

Abstract

Real-life daily handcycling requires combined propulsion and steering to control the front wheel. Today, the handcycle cranks are mostly mounted synchronously unlike the early handcycle generations. Alternatively, arm cycle ergometers do not require steering and the cranks are mostly positioned asynchronously. The current study aims to evaluate the effects of combining propulsion and steering requirements on synchronous and asynchronous submaximal handcycle ergometry. We hypothesize that asynchronous handcycling with steering results in the mechanically least efficient condition, due to compensation for unwanted rotations that are not seen in synchronous handcycling, regardless of steering. Sixteen able-bodied male novices volunteered in this lab-based experiment. The set-up consisted of a handcycle ergometer with 3D force sensors at each crank that also allows "natural" steering. Four submaximal steady-state (60 rpm, ~35 W) exercise conditions were presented in a counterbalanced order: synchronous with a fixed steering axis, synchronous with steering, asynchronous with a fixed axis and asynchronous with steering. All participants practiced 3 × 4 mins with 30 mins rest in between every condition. Finally, they did handcycle for 4 mins in each of the four conditions, interspaced with 10 mins rest, while metabolic outcomes, kinetics and kinematics of the ergometer were recorded. The additional steering component did not influence velocity, torque and power production during synchronous handcycling and therefore resulted in an equal metabolically efficient handcycling configuration compared to the fixed condition. Contrarily, asynchronous handcycling with steering requirements showed a reduced mechanical efficiency, as velocity around the steering axis increased and torque and power production were less effective. Based on the torque production around the crank and steering axes, neuromuscular compensation strategies seem necessary to prevent steering movements in the asynchronous mode. To practice or test real-life daily synchronous handcycling, a synchronous crank set-up of the ergometer is advised, as exercise performance in terms of mechanical efficiency, metabolic strain, and torque production is independent of steering requirements in that mode. Asynchronous handcycling or arm ergometry demands a different handcycle technique in terms of torque production and results in higher metabolic responses than synchronous handcycling, making it unsuitable for testing.

Copyright © 2021 Kraaijenbrink, Vegter, Ostertag, Janssens, Vanlandewijck, van der Woude and Wagner.

Keywords: crank mode; cyclic exercise; ergometry; handcycle technique; mechanical efficiency; upper body exercise

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2012;15(3):295-301 - PubMed
  2. J Rehabil Med. 2018 Jun 15;50(6):563-568 - PubMed
  3. J Appl Biomech. 2013 Dec;29(6):687-95 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Mar;112(3):983-9 - PubMed
  5. J Med Eng Technol. 2009;33(2):151-7 - PubMed
  6. Med Eng Phys. 2012 Jan;34(1):78-84 - PubMed
  7. Ergonomics. 2009 Oct;52(10):1276-86 - PubMed
  8. Disabil Rehabil. 2021 May;43(10):1429-1442 - PubMed
  9. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Jul;21(6):560-6 - PubMed
  10. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008 Aug;18(4):598-605 - PubMed
  11. Int J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;29(8):630-8 - PubMed
  12. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(9):1049-60 - PubMed
  13. Int J Sports Med. 2004 Nov;25(8):622-6 - PubMed
  14. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(9):1295-302 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jan;102(2):189-94 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020 Aug;20(7):926-934 - PubMed
  17. Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Sep 9;:1-15 - PubMed
  18. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013 Jul;36(4):376-82 - PubMed
  19. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jun 26;15(1):56 - PubMed
  20. Can J Sport Sci. 1992 Dec;17(4):338-45 - PubMed
  21. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Mar 10;12:26 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;72(1-2):111-4 - PubMed
  23. J Rehabil Med. 2017 Apr 6;49(4):289-303 - PubMed
  24. Spinal Cord. 1999 Aug;37(8):569-74 - PubMed
  25. Int J Sports Med. 2008 Sep;29(9):746-52 - PubMed
  26. Med Eng Phys. 2008 Jun;30(5):574-80 - PubMed
  27. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Jan;22(1):104-13 - PubMed
  28. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Feb 24;17(1):29 - PubMed
  29. Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Feb;42(3):400-409 - PubMed
  30. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1983;15(4):295-8 - PubMed
  31. Ergonomics. 1986 Dec;29(12):1561-73 - PubMed
  32. J Med Eng Technol. 2000 Nov-Dec;24(6):242-9 - PubMed
  33. J Sports Sci. 2007 Feb 15;25(4):453-60 - PubMed
  34. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992 Jan;24(1):100-7 - PubMed
  35. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019 May;42(3):272-280 - PubMed
  36. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92-8 - PubMed
  37. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014 Apr;24(2):386-94 - PubMed
  38. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998 Sep;78(4):346-52 - PubMed
  39. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020 Feb;30(2):361-369 - PubMed

Publication Types