Why is the metabolic efficiency of FES cycling low?

The potential benefits of functional electrically stimulated (FES) cycling for people with spinal cord injury (SCI) are limited by the power output (PO) attainable. To understand why PO and metabolic efficiency are low, it is helpful to distinguish the effect of the SCI from the effects of electrical stimulation. The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of electrically stimulated (ES) muscle under simpler conditions and in able-bodied people in order to answer two questions about the causes of the poor efficiency in FES cycling. Fifteen able-bodied subjects (26.6 years, six male) performed 5 min of intermittent isometric quadriceps contractions at 40% maximum voluntary contraction during both voluntary and ES activation. Subsequently, nine of them performed 5 min of ES intermittent concentric contractions at the same intensity. This intermittent quadriceps activation imitated the muscles' activity during FES cycling at 35 rpm. Metabolic measurements were recorded. Input power relative to the integral of torque produced (W/Nm x s) was significantly higher during ES than voluntary isometric contractions. Efficiency of ES concentric contractions was 29.6 +/-2.9%. Respiratory exchange ratio was high during ES (1.00-1.01) compared with voluntary (0.91) contractions. ES is less economic than voluntary exercise during isometric contractions, probably due to the greater activation of fast muscle fibres. However, during ES concentric contractions, efficiency is near to the expected values for the velocity chosen. Thus there are additional factors that affect the inefficiency observed during FES cycling.

Control of leg-powered paraplegic cycling using stimulation of the lumbo-sacral anterior spinal nerve roots.

We investigated leg-powered cycling in a recumbent tricycle for a paraplegic using functional electrical stimulation (FES) with the lumbo-sacral anterior root stimulator implant (LARSI). A female complete T9 paraplegic had a stimulator for the anterior L2 to S2 spinal roots (bilaterally) implanted in 1994. She was provided with equipment for daily FES cycling exercise at home. The cycling controller applies a pattern of stimulation in each of 16 crank angle phases. A 7-bit shaft encoder measures the crank angle with adequate precision. Each pattern was originally chosen to give the greatest propulsive force in that position when there was no motion. However, dynamically, some reduction in co-contraction is needed; also the patterns are applied with a preset advance time. Maximal power is obtained with an advance of 250 ms, which compensates for muscle response delay and accommodates changes in cadence (from about 25 to 85 rpm). With this system, she has cycled 1.2 km at a time on gently undulating road. We found that spinal root stimulation gives sufficient control over the muscles in the legs to produce a fluid cycling gait. We propose that root stimulation for leg cycling exercise may be a practicable and valuable function for paraplegics following spinal cord injury.