↓ Skip to main content

The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00421-011-1914-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stig Leirdal, Gertjan Ettema

Abstract

Technique and energy saving are two variables often considered as important for performance in cycling and related to each other. Theoretically, excellent pedalling technique should give high gross efficiency (GE). The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between pedalling technique and GE. 10 well-trained cyclists were measured for GE, force effectiveness (FE) and dead centre size (DC) at a work rate corresponding to ~75% of VO(2)max during level and inclined cycling, seat adjusted forward and backward, at three different cadences around their own freely chosen cadence (FCC) on an ergometer. Within subjects, FE, DC and GE decreased as cadence increased (p < 0.001). A strong relationship between FE and GE was found, which was to great extent explained by FCC. The relationship between cadence and both FE and GE, within and between subjects, was very similar, irrespective of FCC. There was no difference between level and inclined cycling position. The seat adjustments did not affect FE, DC and GE or the relationship between them. Energy expenditure is strongly coupled to cadence, but force effectiveness, as a measure for pedalling technique, is not likely the cause of this relationship. FE, DC and GE are not affected by body orientation or seat adjustments, indicating that these parameters and the relationship between them are robust to coordinative challenges within a range of cadence, body orientation and seat position that is used in regular cycling.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 196 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 22%
Student > Bachelor 32 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 14%
Researcher 17 8%
Professor 10 5%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 28 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 103 51%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Engineering 13 6%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 38 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,985
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,141
of 119,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#27
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 119,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.