Emphasizing one leg facilitates single‐leg training using standard cycling equipment. (18th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Staples, Trevor J.; Do‐Duc, Andréa‐Anh; Link, Jenna E.; Martin, James C.
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. Volume 30:Number 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1017
• Page End: 1023
• Publication Date: 2020-03-18
• Subjects: biomechanics -- cycling -- peripheral adaptation -- rehabilitation -- small muscle mass; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sports -- Periodicals; 617.1027
• DOI: 10.1111/sms.13638
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7188

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Single‐leg cycling exercise is one of the most potent, but underutilized, stimuli for promoting peripheral muscle respiratory capacity. Special ergometers used to facilitate single‐leg cycling, while maintaining biomechanics similar to double‐leg cycling, are not widely available. This lack of availability of specialized ergometers may explain why single‐leg cycling has not been widely implemented as standard clinical practice. Therefore, we explored the extent to which participants could emphasize one leg and de‐emphasize the other to perform "single‐leg emphasis cycling" using standard cycle ergometers. Methods: Sixteen athletic participants performed single‐leg emphasis cycling, emphasizing each leg in separate trials, and double‐leg cycling. Pedal forces and limb kinematics were collected and used to calculate joint‐specific work and power at the ankle, knee, and hip. Results: Study participants were able to produce approximately three times as much power with their emphasized leg compared to the de‐emphasized leg during single‐leg emphasis cycling. Ankle plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, knee extension, and hip extension work produced during single‐leg emphasis cycling did not differ from those during double‐leg cycling (all P > .60). Hip and knee flexion work during single‐leg emphasis cycling exhibited small but significant differences (both P < .05) from double‐leg cycling. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that single‐leg emphasis cycling provides a convenient alternative to single‐leg cycling requiring specialized ergometers, therefore, facilitating improved training in clinical and athletic populations using commonly available equipment. Further, biomechanics during single‐leg emphasis cycling closely approximated double‐leg cycling ensuring that training adaptations are highly applicable to double‐leg cycling.