| Title |
Biomechanical, cardiorespiratory, metabolic and perceived responses to electrically assisted cycling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-012-2382-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Billy Sperlich, Christoph Zinner, Kim Hébert-Losier, Dennis-Peter Born, Hans-Christer Holmberg |
| Abstract |
The aims of the present study were to characterize the effects of cycling in varying terrain with the assistance of an electric motor with respect to (1) power output, velocity, and electromyography (EMG) signals; (2) cardiorespiratory parameters; (3) energy expenditure (EE); (4) rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and enjoyment and to compare these effects with those of non-assisted cycling. Eight sedentary women (age: 38 ± 15 years, BMI: 25.3 ± 2.1 kg m(-2)) cycled 9.5 km on varying terrain (change in elevation: 102 m, maximum incline: 5.8 %) at their own pace, once with and once without motorized assistance, in randomized order. With electrical assistance, the mean power output (-29 %); EMG patterns of the m. biceps femoris (-49 %), m. vastus lateralis (-33 %), m. vastus medialis (-37 %), and m. gastrocnemius medialis (-29 %); heart rate (-29.1 %); oxygen uptake (-33.0 %); respiratory exchange ratio (-9.0 %); and EE (-36.5 %) were all lower, whereas the mean cycling speed was higher (P < 0.05) than that without such assistance. In addition, following assisted exercise the mean blood lactate concentration and RPE were lower (P < 0.05) and ratings of enjoyment higher (P < 0.05). Moreover, motorized cycling was associated with (1) lower EMG with higher power output and speed; (2) less cardiorespiratory and metabolic effort; (3) lower respiratory exchange ratio; (4) lower RPE with more enjoyment; and (5) sufficient EE, according to present standards, to provide health benefits. Thus, electrically assisted cycling may represent an innovative approach to persuading reluctant sedentary women to exercise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 23 | 19% |
| Engineering | 19 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 39 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,052
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,934
of 172,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 172,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.