Steven J. Elmer

A cycling workstation to facilitate physical activity in office settings

Facilitating physical activity during the workday may help desk-bound workers reduce risks associated with sedentary behavior. We 1) evaluated the efficacy of a cycling workstation to increase energy expenditure while performing a typing task and 2) fabricated a power measurement system to determine the accuracy and reliability of an exercise cycle. Ten individuals performed 10 min trials of sitting while typing (SIT type) and pedaling while typing (PED type). Expired gases were recorded and typing performance was assessed. Metabolic cost during PED type was ∼ 2.5 × greater compared to SIT type (255 ± 14 vs. 100 ± 11 kcal h(-1), P < 0.01). Typing time and number of typing errors did not differ between PED type and SIT type (7.7 ± 1.5 vs. 7.6 ± 1.6 min, P = 0.51, 3.3 ± 4.6 vs. 3.8 ± 2.7 errors, P = 0.80). The exercise cycle overestimated power by 14-138% compared to actual power but actual power was reliable (r = 0.998, P < 0.01). A cycling workstation can facilitate physical activity without compromising typing performance. The exercise cycles inaccuracy could be misleading to users.

Improvements in multi-joint leg function following chronic eccentric exercise.

Previous authors have reported that chronic eccentric cycling facilitates greater changes in multi‐joint leg function (hopping frequency, maximum jumping height) compared with concentric cycling. Our purpose was to evaluate changes in leg spring stiffness and maximum power following eccentric and concentric cycling training. Twelve individuals performed either eccentric (n=6) or concentric (n=6) cycling for 7 weeks (3 sessions/week) while training duration progressively increased. Participants performed trials of submaximal hopping, maximal counter movement jumps, and maximal concentric cycling to evaluate leg spring stiffness, maximum jumping power, and maximum concentric cycling power respectively, before and 1 week following training. Total work during training did not differ between eccentric and concentric cycling (126 ± 15–728 ± 91 kJ vs 125 ± 10–787 ± 76 kJ). Following training, eccentric cycling exhibited greater changes in kleg and jumping Pmax compared with CONcyc (10 ± 3% vs −2 ± 4% and 7 ± 2% vs −2 ± 3%, respectively, P=0.05). Alterations in CONcycPmax did not differ between ECCcyc (1035 ± 142 vs 1030 ± 133 W) and CONcyc (1072 ± 98 vs 1081 ± 85 W). These data demonstrate that eccentric cycling is an effective method for improving leg spring stiffness and maximum power during multi‐joint tasks that include stretch‐shortening cycles. Improvements in leg spring stiffness and maximum power would be beneficial for both aging and athletic populations.

Effect of Crank Length on Joint-Specific Power during Maximal Cycling

UNLABELLED Previous investigators have suggested that crank length has little effect on overall short-term maximal cycling power once the effects of pedal speed and pedaling rate are accounted for. Although overall maximal power may be unaffected by crank length, it is possible that similar overall power might be produced with different combinations of joint-specific powers. Knowing the effects of crank length on joint-specific power production during maximal cycling may have practical implications with respect to avoiding or delaying fatigue during high-intensity exercise. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of changes in crank length on joint-specific powers during short-term maximal cycling. METHODS Fifteen trained cyclists performed maximal isokinetic cycling trials using crank lengths of 150, 165, 170, 175, and 190 mm. At each crank length, participants performed maximal trials at pedaling rates optimized for maximum power and at a constant pedaling rate of 120 rpm. Using pedal forces and limb kinematics, joint-specific powers were calculated via inverse dynamics and normalized to overall pedal power. RESULTS ANOVAs revealed that crank length had no significant effect on relative joint-specific powers at the hip, knee, or ankle joints (P > 0.05) when pedaling rate was optimized. When pedaling rate was constant, crank length had a small but significant effect on hip and knee joint power (150 vs 190 mm only) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS These data demonstrate that crank length does not affect relative joint-specific power once the effects of pedaling rate and pedal speed are accounted for. Our results thereby substantiate previous findings that crank length per se is not an important determinant of maximum cycling power production.

Joint-specific power absorption during eccentric cycling

BACKGROUND Previous investigators have reported that long term eccentric cycling increases muscle size and strength in a variety of populations. The joint-specific strategies used to absorb power during eccentric cycling, however, have not been identified. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the extent to which ankle, knee, and hip joint actions absorb power during eccentric cycling. METHODS Eight active males resisted the reverse moving pedals of an isokinetic eccentric ergometer (60 rpm) while targeting 20% of their maximum concentric cycling power. Pedal reaction forces and joint kinematics were recorded with an instrumented pedal and instrumented spatial linkage system, respectively. Joint powers were calculated using inverse dynamics; averaged over complete crank revolutions and over extension and flexion phases; and differences were assessed with a one-way ANOVA. FINDINGS Ankle, knee, and hip joint actions absorbed 10 (SD 3)%, 58 (SD 8)%, and 29 (SD 9)% of the total power, respectively, with 3 (SD 1)% transferred across the hip. The main power absorbing actions were eccentric knee extension (-139 (SD 21) watts), eccentric hip extension (-51 (SD 31) watts), and eccentric hip flexion (-25 (SD 6) watts). INTERPRETATION Eccentric cycling was performed with a combination of knee and hip joint actions which is consistent with submaximal concentric cycling. These data support and extend previous work that eccentric cycling improves knee extensor function and hip extensor muscle cross sectional area. Such information may allow clinicians to take even greater advantage of eccentric cycling as a rehabilitation modality.

Joint-specific power loss after eccentric exercise.

UNLABELLED Previous investigators have reported changes in maximal power after eccentric exercise. The influence of eccentric joint-specific power absorption on subsequent concentric joint-specific power production during multijoint actions has not been reported. PURPOSE Our purposes were to determine the extent to which ankle, knee, and hip joint actions absorbed power during eccentric cycling (ECCcyc) and to evaluate changes in power produced by those joint actions during subsequent maximal concentric cycling (CONcyc). We hypothesized that joint actions that absorbed the most power during ECCcyc would exhibit the greatest reductions in power during subsequent maximal CONcyc. METHODS Nineteen cyclists performed baseline trials of maximal single-leg CONcyc immediately before and 24 h after acute single-leg ECCcyc (5 min, 40% maximum single-leg CONcyc power). Pedal forces and limb kinematics were determined with a force-sensing pedal and instrumented spatial linkage system, respectively. Joint-specific powers were calculated using inverse dynamics and averaged over complete crank revolutions and over extension and flexion phases. RESULTS The largest power-absorbing actions during ECCcyc were eccentric knee extensor activity (-185 +/- 12 W) followed by eccentric hip extensor activity (-92 +/- 12 W). Power absorbed through ankle joint actions was small (-10 +/- 2 W). At 24 h, pedal power produced during maximal CONcyc was reduced by 11% +/- 3% relative to baseline. Compared with baseline, knee extension power was reduced by 19% +/- 0 7%, whereas hip extension power did not differ. CONCLUSIONS Power absorbed through eccentric knee extension actions significantly reduced knee extension power produced during subsequent maximal CONcyc. Even with reduced knee extensor function, participants were able to deliver 89% of their baseline power to the environment. These results have implications for individuals who must continue to perform multijoint activities after eccentric exercise.

Chronic eccentric cycling improves quadriceps muscle structure and maximum cycling power.

An interesting finding from eccentric exercise training interventions is the presence of muscle hypertrophy without changes in maximum concentric strength and/or power. The lack of improvements in concentric strength and/or power could be due to long lasting suppressive effects on muscle force production following eccentric training. Thus, improvements in concentric strength and/or power might not be detected until muscle tissue has recovered (e. g., several weeks post-training). We evaluated alterations in muscular structure (rectus-femoris, RF, and vastus lateralis, VL, thickness and pennation angles) and maximum concentric cycling power (Pmax) 1-week following 8-weeks of eccentric cycling training (2×/week; 5-10.5 min; 20-55% of Pmax). Pmax was assessed again at 8-weeks post-training. At 1 week post-training, RF and VL thickness increased by 24±4% and 13±2%, respectively, and RF and VL pennation angles increased by 31±4% and 13±1%, respectively (all P<0.05). Compared to pre-training values, Pmax increased by 5±1% and 9±2% at 1 and 8 weeks post-training, respectively (both P<0.05). These results demonstrate that short-duration high-intensity eccentric cycling can be a time-effective intervention for improving muscular structure and function in the lower body of healthy individuals. The larger Pmax increase detected at 8-weeks post-training implies that sufficient recovery might be necessary to fully detect changes in muscular power after eccentric cycling training.

Development of a novel eccentric arm cycle ergometer for training the upper body.

UNLABELLED Several investigators have demonstrated that chronic eccentric leg cycling is an effective method for improving lower body neuromuscular function (e.g., quadriceps muscle size, strength, and mobility) in a variety of patient and athletic populations. To date, there are no reports of using eccentric arm cycling (EC(arm)) as an exercise modality, probably in large part because of the lack of commercially available EC(arm) ergometers. PURPOSE Our purposes for conducting this study were to 1) describe the design and construction of an EC(arm) ergometer and 2) compare EC(arm) to traditional concentric arm cycling (CC(arm)). METHODS All of the parts of a Monark 891E cycle ergometer (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden) were removed, leaving the frame and flywheel. An electric motor (2.2 kW) was connected to the flywheel via a pulley and a belt. Motor speed and pedaling rate were controlled by a variable frequency drive. A power meter quantified power and pedaling rate, and provided feedback to the individual. Eight individuals performed 3-min EC(arm) and CC(arm) trials at 40, 80, and 120 W (60 rpm) while VO(2) was measured. RESULTS The EC(arm) ergometer was simple to use, was adjustable, provided feedback on power output to the user, and allowed for a range of eccentric powers. VO(2) during EC(arm) was substantially lower compared with CC(arm) (P < 0.001). At similar VO(2) (0.97 ± 0.18 vs 0.91 ± 0.09 L·min(-1), for EC(arm) and CC(arm), respectively, P = 0.26), power absorbed during EC(arm) was approximately threefold greater than that produced during CC(arm) (118 ± 1 vs 40 ± 1 W, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION This novel EC(arm) ergometer can be used to perform repetitive, high-force, multijoint, eccentric actions with the upper body at a low level of metabolic demand and may allow researchers and clinicians to use EC(arm) as a training and rehabilitation modality.

Joint-specific power-pedaling rate relationships during maximal cycling.

Previous authors have reported power-pedaling rate relationships for maximal cycling. However, the joint-specific power-pedaling rate relationships that contribute to pedal power have not been reported. We determined absolute and relative contributions of joint-specific powers to pedal power across a range of pedaling rates during maximal cycling. Ten cyclists performed maximal 3 s cycling trials at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 rpm. Joint-specific powers were averaged over complete pedal cycles, and extension and flexion actions. Effects of pedaling rate on relative joint-specific power, velocity, and excursion were assessed with regression analyses and repeated-measures ANOVA. Relative ankle plantar flexion power (25 to 8%; P = .01; R(2) = .90) decreased with increasing pedaling rate, whereas relative hip extension power (41 to 59%; P < .01; R(2) = .92) and knee flexion power (34 to 49%; P < .01; R(2) = .94) increased with increasing pedaling rate. Knee extension powers did not differ across pedaling rates. Ankle joint angular excursion decreased with increasing pedaling rate (48 to 20 deg) whereas hip joint excursion increased (42 to 48 deg). These results demonstrate that the often-reported quadratic power-pedaling rate relationship arises from combined effects of dissimilar joint-specific power-pedaling rate relationships. These dissimilar relationships are likely influenced by musculoskeletal constraints (ie, muscle architecture, morphology) and/or motor control strategies.

Effects of locomotor muscle fatigue on joint-specific power production during cycling

UNLABELLED Previous authors have reported reductions in maximum power after high-intensity cycling exercise. Exercise-induced changes in power produced by ankle, knee, and hip joint actions (joint-specific powers), however, have not been reported. PURPOSE Our purpose was to evaluate joint-specific power production during a cycling time trial (TT) and also to compare pre- to post-TT changes in maximal cycling (MAXcyc) joint-specific powers. METHODS Ten cyclists performed MAXcyc trials (90 rpm) before and after a 10-min TT (288 ± 10 W, 90 rpm). Pedal forces and limb kinematics were determined with a force-sensing pedal and an instrumented spatial linkage, respectively. Joint-specific powers were calculated and averaged over complete pedal cycles and over extension and flexion phases. RESULTS Pedal and joint-specific powers did not change during the TT. Compared to pre-TT, pedal power produced during post-TT MAXcyc was reduced by 32% ± 3% (P < 0.001). Relative changes in ankle plantarflexion (43% ± 5%) and knee flexion powers (52% ± 5%) were similar but were greater than changes in knee extension (12% ± 4%) and hip extension powers (28% ± 6%; both P < 0.05). Pedal and joint-specific powers produced during post-TT MAXcyc were greater than those powers produced during the final 3 s of the TT (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Exercise-induced changes in MAXcyc power manifested with differential power loss at each joint action with ankle plantarflexion and knee flexion exhibiting relatively greater fatigue than knee extension and hip extension. However, changes in MAXcyc joint-specific powers were not presaged by changes in TT joint-specific powers. We conclude that fatigue induced via high-intensity cycling does not alter submaximal joint-specific powers but has distinct functional consequences for MAXcyc joint-specific powers.

The effect of shortening history on isometric and dynamic muscle function.

Despite numerous reports on isometric force depression, few reports have quantified force depression during active muscle shortening (dynamic force depression). The purpose of this investigation was to determine the influence of shortening history on isometric force following active shortening, force during isokinetic shortening, and velocity during isotonic shortening. The soleus muscles of four cats were subjected to a series of isokinetic contractions at three shortening velocities and isotonic contractions under three loads. Muscle excursions initiated from three different muscle lengths but terminated at a constant length. Isometric force produced subsequent to active shortening, and force or shortening velocity produced at a specific muscle length during shortening, were compared across all three conditions. Results indicated that shortening history altered isometric force by up to 5%, force during isokinetic shortening up to 30% and shortening velocity during isotonic contractions by up to 63%. Furthermore, there was a load by excursion interaction during isotonic contractions such that excursion had the most influence on shortening velocity when the loads were the greatest. There was not a velocity by excursion interaction during isokinetic contractions. Isokinetic and isotonic power-velocity relationships displayed a downward shift in power as excursions increased. Thus, to discuss force depression based on differences in isometric force subsequent to active shortening may underestimate its importance during dynamic contractions. The presence of dynamic force depression should be realized in sport performance, motor control modeling and when controlling paralyzed limbs through artificial stimulation.