Cycling position optimisation - a systematic review of the impact of positional changes on biomechanical and physiological factors in cycling.

Bike positional configuration changes strongly affect cycling performance. While consensus has emerged on saddle height optimisation, there is none for the relationship between other bike positional variables and cycling performance. Accordingly, this systematic review examines the effect of all major positional variables on performance in cycling, assessing differences between cycling disciplines and sex where possible. The systematic review, conducted per PRISMA guidelines, searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and CINAHL, screening 16,578 studies. Of these, 47 were fully analysed. Study quality assessment using the NIH tool revealed none rated "good", 5 "fair" and 33 "poor". The analysis involved 724 participants (90 female, 454 male, 180 sex unstated). Studies focused on trunk angle/upper body position, handlebar height, Q factor, foot position, saddle fore-aft/height, seat tube angle and crank length. Participant cycling disciplines were often unspecified and few papers address women cyclists specifically. Key findings were associated with changing saddle height, trunk angle and saddle fore-aft. For trunk angle, accounting for the biomechanical and physiological effects as well as aerodynamic changes is important. Saddle fore-aft affects the hip angle and trunk angle. There are no clear recommendations for crank length, handlebar height, Q factor or cleat position.

Effects of workload and saddle height on muscle activation of the lower limb during cycling.

BACKGROUND: Cycling workload is an essential factor in practical cycling training. Saddle height is the most studied topic in bike fitting, but the results are controversial. This study aims to investigate the effects of workload and saddle height on the activation level and coordination of the lower limb muscles during cycling. METHODS: Eighteen healthy male participants with recreational cycling experience performed 15 × 2-min constant cadence cycling at five saddle heights of 95%, 97%, 100%, 103%, and 105% of greater trochanter height (GTH) and three cycling workloads of 25%, 50%, and 75% of functional threshold power (FTP). The EMG signals of the rectus femoris (RF), tibialis anterior (TA), biceps femoris (BF), and medial gastrocnemius (MG) of the right lower limb were collected throughout the experiment. RESULTS: Greater muscle activation was observed for the RF and BF at a higher cycling workload, whereas no differences were observed for the TA and MG. The MG showed intensified muscle activation as the saddle height increased. The mean and maximum amplitudes of the EMG signals of the MG increased by 56.24% and 57.24% at the 25% FTP workload, 102.71% and 126.95% at the 50% FTP workload, and 84.27% and 53.81% at the 75% FTP workload, respectively, when the saddle height increased from 95 to 100% of the GTH. The muscle activation level of the RF was minimal at 100% GTH saddle height. The onset and offset timing revealed few significant differences across cycling conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Muscle activation of the RF and BF was affected by cycling workload, while that of the MG was affected by saddle height. The 100% GTH is probably the appropriate saddle height for most cyclists. There was little statistical difference in muscle activation duration, which might be related to the small workload.

Does saddle height influence knee frontal-plane biomechanics during stationary cycling?

INTRODUCTION: Cycling is a common modality for rehabilitation and exercise. However, there is a lack of information in the literature on the effects of saddle height adjustments on internal peak knee abduction moment, which is an important loading variable for the medial compartment of tibiofemoral joint for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to examine effects of saddle height on frontal-plane biomechanics of the knee during cycling. METHODS: Fourteen recreational cyclists (age: 57.1 ± 6.37 years) performed 2-min bouts of cycling at three saddle heights of 40°, 30° and 20° knee extension angle at bottom crank position, at two workrates of 80 and 120 W. Three-dimensional kinematic, kinetic, and electromyography data were collected and analyzed using a 3 × 2 (height × workrate) analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: There were no changes in internal knee abduction moment across saddle heights. Increases in saddle height from 40° to both 30° and 20° reduced the knee extension moment (d = 0.3 and 0.4, respectively, P = 0.012). Increases in workrate increased both knee abduction and extension moments (η2p = 0.75 and 0.88, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Increased knee extension moment with decreased saddle height is likely to indicate increased knee joint load.

Effect of bike-fit in the perception of comfort, fatigue and pain.

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different bike positions on the perception of fatigue, pain and comfort. Twenty cyclists underwent three tests that involved cycling for 45 min at their individual 50% peak aerobic power output while adopting different positions on the bike. Participants performed the cycling tests adopting three positions defined by two parameters (knee flexion angle [20°, 30°, 40°] and trunk flexion angle [35°, 45°, 55°]) in random order. Angles were measured using a 2D motion analysis system during cycling and applying Fonda's correction factor. Perceptions of comfort, fatigue and pain were reported before the end of each test. The combination of 40° knee flexion and 35° trunk flexion was perceived as the most uncomfortable position. Moreover, greater knee flexion had a negative effect on trunk comfort, accompanied by greater levels of fatigue and pain perception in the anterior part of the thigh and knee. In conclusion, cyclists perceived the most comfortable position to be when the saddle height was within the recommended knee angle (30° calculated from the offset position or 40 ± 4.0° of absolute value). Upright trunk was found to be the most comfortable position for recreational cyclists, where aerodynamics is not so important. Cyclists' bike perceptions should be taken into account when it comes to choosing the most beneficial position, since this can play a role in injury prevention and enhance cycling performance.

Relative variances of the cadence frequency of cycling under two differential saddle heights.

[Purpose] Bicycle saddle height is a critical factor for cycling performance and injury prevention. The present study compared the variance in cadence frequency after exercise fatigue between saddle heights with 25° and 35° knee flexion. [Methods] Two saddle heights, which were determined by setting the pedal at the bottom dead point with 35° and 25° knee flexion, were used for testing. The relative variances of the cadence frequency were calculated at the end of a 5-minute warm-up period and 5 minutes after inducing exercise fatigue. Comparison of the absolute values of the cadence frequency under the two saddle heights revealed a difference in pedaling efficiency. [Results] Five minutes after inducing exercise fatigue, the relative variances of the cadence frequency for the saddle height with 35° knee flexion was higher than that for the saddle height with 25° knee flexion. [Conclusion] The current finding demonstrated that a saddle height with 25° knee flexion is more appropriate for cyclists than a saddle height with 35° knee flexion.