Effect of cadence, cycling experience, and aerobic power on delta efficiency during cycling

Citation
Ap. Marsh et al., Effect of cadence, cycling experience, and aerobic power on delta efficiency during cycling, MED SCI SPT, 32(9), 2000, pp. 1630-1634
Citations number
23
Categorie Soggetti
Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
ISSN journal
01959131 → ACNP
Volume
32
Issue
9
Year of publication
2000
Pages
1630 - 1634
Database
ISI
SICI code
0195-9131(200009)32:9<1630:EOCCEA>2.0.ZU;2-O
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the influence of cadence, cycling experience, and aerob ic power on delta efficiency during cycling and to determine the significan ce of delta efficiency as a factor underlying the selection of preferred ca dence, Methods: Delta efficiency (DE) was determined for ii trained experie nced cyclists (C), 10 trained runners (R), and 10 less-trained noncyclists (LT) at 50, 65, 80, 95, and 110 rpm. Preferred cadence (PC) was determined at 100, 150, and 200 W for C and R and at 75, 100, and 150 W for LT. Gas ex change at each power output (PO) was measured on a separate day, and the fi ve cadences were randomly ordered on each occasion. It was hypothesized tha t: a) cyclists are most efficient at the higher cadences at which they are accustomed to training and racing, i.e., there will be a trend for DE to in crease with increases in cadence; b) cyclists and runners will exhibit simi lar DE across the range of cadences tested; and c) DE of less-trained subje cts will be lower than that of cyclists and runners. Results: PCs of C and R were similar and did not change appreciably with PO (100 W: C, 95.6 +/- 1 0.8, R, 92.0 +/- 8.5: 150 W: C, 94.4 +/- 10.3; R, 92.9 +/- 7.8: 200 W: C, 9 2.2 +/- 7.2; R, 91.8 +/- 7.9 rpm). The PC of LT was significantly lower and decreased with increases in power output (75 W: 80.0 +/- 15.3; 100 W: 77.5 +/- 15.1; 150 W: 69.1 +/- 11.9 rpm). The first hypothesis was rejected bec ause analysis of the cyclists' data alone revealed no systematic increase i n DE as cadence was increased [F(4, 40) = 0.272, P = 0.894]. Repeated measu res ANOVA an all three groups revealed no group X cadence interaction [F(8, 112) = 0.589, P = 0.785]. Again there was no systematic Effect of cadence o n DE [F(4.112) = 1.058, P = 0.381]. The second and third hypotheses were al so rejected since there was no group main effect, i.e., DE of cyclists, run ners, and less-trained subjects were not significantly different [F(2,28) = 1.397, P = 0.264]. Conclusion: Pedaling cadence did not have a dramatic ef fect on DE in any group. Muscular efficiency, as measured indirectly by del ta efficiency, appears to remain relatively constant at approximately 24%, regardless of cycling experience or fitness level.