↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Bicycle Saddle Height on Knee Injury Risk and Cycling Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
455 Mendeley
Title
Effects of Bicycle Saddle Height on Knee Injury Risk and Cycling Performance
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/11588740-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Bini, Patria A. Hume, James L. Croft

Abstract

Incorrect bicycle configuration may predispose athletes to injury and reduce their cycling performance. There is disagreement within scientific and coaching communities regarding optimal configuration of bicycles for athletes. This review summarizes literature on methods for determining bicycle saddle height and the effects of bicycle saddle height on measures of cycling performance and lower limb injury risk. Peer-reviewed journals, books, theses and conference proceedings published since 1960 were searched using MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, EBSCO and Google Scholar databases, resulting in 62 references being reviewed. Keywords searched included 'body positioning', 'saddle', 'posture, 'cycling' and 'injury'. The review revealed that methods for determining optimal saddle height are varied and not well established, and have been based on relationships between saddle height and lower limb length (Hamley and Thomas, trochanteric length, length from ischial tuberosity to floor, LeMond, heel methods) or a reference range of knee joint flexion. There is limited information on the effects of saddle height on lower limb injury risk (lower limb kinematics, knee joint forces and moments and muscle mechanics), but more information on the effects of saddle height on cycling performance (performance time, energy expenditure/oxygen uptake, power output, pedal force application). Increasing saddle height can cause increased shortening of the vastii muscle group, but no change in hamstring length. Length and velocity of contraction in the soleus seems to be more affected by saddle height than that in the gastrocnemius. The majority of evidence suggested that a 5% change in saddle height affected knee joint kinematics by 35% and moments by 16%. Patellofemoral compressive force seems to be inversely related to saddle height but the effects on tibiofemoral forces are uncertain. Changes of less than 4% in trochanteric length do not seem to affect injury risk or performance. The main limitations from the reported studies are that different methods have been employed for determining saddle height, small sample sizes have been used, cyclists with low levels of expertise have mostly been evaluated and different outcome variables have been measured. Given that the occurrence of overuse knee joint pain is 50% in cyclists, future studies may focus on how saddle height can be optimized to improve cycling performance and reduce knee joint forces to reduce lower limb injury risk. On the basis of the conflicting evidence on the effects of saddle height changes on performance and lower limb injury risk in cycling, we suggest the saddle height may be set using the knee flexion angle method (25-30°) to reduce the risk of knee injuries and to minimize oxygen uptake.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 455 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 1%
Spain 4 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 435 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 17%
Student > Bachelor 78 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 10%
Researcher 28 6%
Student > Postgraduate 22 5%
Other 103 23%
Unknown 99 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 133 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 80 18%
Engineering 38 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 3%
Other 42 9%
Unknown 113 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 08 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,620,497
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,233
of 2,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,344
of 193,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#174
of 832 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 193,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 832 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.