↓ Skip to main content

Altered movement patterns but not muscle recruitment in moderately trained triathletes during running after cycling

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Sports Sciences, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Altered movement patterns but not muscle recruitment in moderately trained triathletes during running after cycling
Published in
Journal of Sports Sciences, November 2010
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2010.514279
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Bonacci, Peter Blanch, Andrew R. Chapman, Bill Vicenzino

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that cycling can directly influence neuromuscular control during subsequent running in some highly trained triathletes, despite these triathletes' years of practice of the cycle-run transition. The aim of this study was to determine whether cycling has the same direct influence on neuromuscular control during running in moderately trained triathletes. Fifteen moderately trained triathletes participated. Kinematics of the pelvis and lower limbs and recruitment of 11 leg and thigh muscles were compared between a control run (no prior exercise) and a 30 min run that was preceded by a 15 min cycle (transition run). Muscle recruitment was different between control and transition runs in only one of 15 triathletes (<7%). Changes in joint position (mean difference of 3°) were evident in five triathletes, which persisted beyond 5 min of running in one triathlete. Our findings suggest that some moderately trained triathletes have difficulty reproducing their pre-cycling movement patterns for running initially after cycling, but cycling appears to have little influence on running muscle recruitment in moderately trained triathletes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 67 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 27 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#3,661
of 3,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,907
of 100,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#50
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 100,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.