Steering Does Affect Biophysical Responses in Asynchronous, but Not Synchronous Submaximal Handcycle Ergometry in Able-Bodied Men.

Real-life daily handcycling requires combined propulsion and steering to control the front wheel. Today, the handcycle cranks are mostly mounted synchronously unlike the early handcycle generations. Alternatively, arm cycle ergometers do not require steering and the cranks are mostly positioned asynchronously. The current study aims to evaluate the effects of combining propulsion and steering requirements on synchronous and asynchronous submaximal handcycle ergometry. We hypothesize that asynchronous handcycling with steering results in the mechanically least efficient condition, due to compensation for unwanted rotations that are not seen in synchronous handcycling, regardless of steering. Sixteen able-bodied male novices volunteered in this lab-based experiment. The set-up consisted of a handcycle ergometer with 3D force sensors at each crank that also allows "natural" steering. Four submaximal steady-state (60 rpm, ~35 W) exercise conditions were presented in a counterbalanced order: synchronous with a fixed steering axis, synchronous with steering, asynchronous with a fixed axis and asynchronous with steering. All participants practiced 3 × 4 mins with 30 mins rest in between every condition. Finally, they did handcycle for 4 mins in each of the four conditions, interspaced with 10 mins rest, while metabolic outcomes, kinetics and kinematics of the ergometer were recorded. The additional steering component did not influence velocity, torque and power production during synchronous handcycling and therefore resulted in an equal metabolically efficient handcycling configuration compared to the fixed condition. Contrarily, asynchronous handcycling with steering requirements showed a reduced mechanical efficiency, as velocity around the steering axis increased and torque and power production were less effective. Based on the torque production around the crank and steering axes, neuromuscular compensation strategies seem necessary to prevent steering movements in the asynchronous mode. To practice or test real-life daily synchronous handcycling, a synchronous crank set-up of the ergometer is advised, as exercise performance in terms of mechanical efficiency, metabolic strain, and torque production is independent of steering requirements in that mode. Asynchronous handcycling or arm ergometry demands a different handcycle technique in terms of torque production and results in higher metabolic responses than synchronous handcycling, making it unsuitable for testing.

Biophysical aspects of handcycling performance in rehabilitation, daily life and recreational sports; a narrative review.

AIM: In this narrative review the potential and importance of handcycling are evaluated. Four conceptual models form the framework for this review; (1) the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; (2) the Stress-Strain-Capacity model; (3) the Human-Activity-Assistive Technology model; and (4) the power balance model for cyclic exercise. METHODS: Based on international handcycle experience in (scientific) research and practice, evidence-based benefits of handcycling and optimization of handcycle settings are presented and discussed for rehabilitation, daily life and recreational sports. RESULTS: As the load can be distributed over the full 360° cycle in handcycling, peak stresses in the shoulder joint and upper body muscles reduce. Moreover, by handcycling regularly, the physical capacity can be improved. The potential of handcycling as an exercise mode for a healthy lifestyle should be recognized and advocated much more widely in rehabilitation and adapted sports practice.The interface between handcycle and its user should be optimized by choosing a suitable person-specific handcycle, but mainly by optimizing the handcycle dimensions to one's needs and desires. These dimensions can influence efficient handcycle use and potentially improve both endurance and speed of handcycling. CONCLUSION: To optimize performance in rehabilitation, daily life and recreational sports, continued and more systematic research is required.Implications for rehabilitationHandcycling allows users to travel farther distances at higher speeds and to train outdoors. It should be recognized as an alternative exercise modality for daily outdoor use, also already in early rehabilitation, while it contributes to a healthy lifestyle.To individualize handcycle performance, the user-handcycle (assistive device) interface as well as the vehicle mechanics should be optimized to minimize external power and reduce friction, so that the upper body capacity can be efficiently used.To optimize handcycling individual performance, both the physiological and biomechanical aspects of handcycling should be considered when monitoring or testing handcycle exercise.

Biomechanical and physiological differences between synchronous and asynchronous low intensity handcycling during practice-based learning in able-bodied men.

BACKGROUND: Originally, the cranks of a handcycle were mounted with a 180° phase shift (asynchronous). However, as handcycling became more popular, the crank mode switched to a parallel mounting (synchronous) over the years. Differences between both modes have been investigated, however, not into great detail for propulsion technique or practice effects. Our aim is to compare both crank modes from a biomechanical and physiological perspective, hence considering force and power production as a cause of physiological outcome measures. This is done within a practice protocol, as it is expected that motor learning takes place in the early stages of handcycling in novices. METHODS: Twelve able-bodied male novices volunteered to take part. The experiment consisted of a pre-test, three practice sessions and a post-test, which was subsequently repeated for both crank modes in a counterbalanced manner. In each session the participants handcycled for 3 × 4 minutes on a leveled motorized treadmill at 1.94 m/s. Inbetween sessions were 2 days of rest. 3D forces, handlebar and crank angle were measured on the left hand side. Kinematic markers were placed on the handcycle to monitor the movement on the treadmill. Lastly, breath-by-breath spirometry combined with heart-rate were continuously measured. The effects of crank mode and practice-based learning were analyzed using a two way repeated measures ANOVA, with synchronous vs asynchronous and pre-test vs post-test as within-subject factors. RESULTS: In the pre-test, asynchronous handcycling was less efficient than synchronous handcycling in terms of physiological strain, force production and timing. At the post-test, the metabolic costs were comparable for both modes. The force production was, also after practice, more efficient in the synchronous mode. External power production, crank rotation velocity and the distance travelled back and forwards on the treadmill suggest that asynchronous handcycling is more constant throughout the cycle. CONCLUSIONS: As the metabolic costs were reduced in the asynchronous mode, we would advise to include a practice period, when comparing both modes in scientific experiments. For handcycle users, we would currently advise a synchronous set-up for daily use, as the force production is more effective in the synchronous mode, even after practice.

Neck muscle responses of driver and front seat passenger during frontal-oblique collisions.

BACKGROUND: Low-velocity motor vehicle crashes often lead to severe and chronic neck disorders also referred to as whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). The etiology of WAD is still not fully understood. Many studies using a real or simulated collision scenario have focused on rear-end collisions, whereas the kinematics and muscular responses during frontal-oblique collisions have hardly been investigated. In particular for rear-end collisions, drivers were shown to have a higher WAD risk than front seat passengers. Yet, independently from the impact direction, neither the muscular nor the kinematic responses of drivers and front seat passengers have been compared to date, although some findings indicate that the neck muscles have the potential to alter the head and neck kinematics, and that the level of neck muscle activity during impact may be relevant for the emergence of WAD. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we quantitatively examined the subjects' neck muscle activity during low-velocity left-frontal-oblique impacts to gain further insights into the neuromuscular mechanism underlying whiplash-like perturbations that may lead to WAD. METHODS: In a within-subject study design, we varied several impact parameters to investigate their effect on neck muscle response amplitude and delay. Fifty-two subjects experienced at least ten collisions while controlling for the following parameters: change in velocity Δv (3 / 6 km/h), seating position (driver / front seat passenger), and deliberate pre-tension of the musculature (tense / relaxed) to account for a potential difference between an expected and an unexpected crash. Ten of the 52 subjects additionally ran the same experimental conditions as above, but without wearing a safety belt. FINDINGS: There were significant main effects of Δv and muscle pre-tension on the reflex amplitude but not of seating position. As for the reflex delay, there was a significant main effect of muscle pre-tension, but neither of Δv nor of seating position. Moreover, neither the safety belt nor its asymmetrical orientation had an influence on the reflexive responses of the occupants. CONCLUSION: In summary, we did not find any significant differences in the reflex amplitude and delay of the neck musculature between drivers and front seat passengers. We therefore concluded that an increased risk of the driver sustaining WAD in frontal-oblique collisions, if it exists, cannot be due to differences in the reflexive responses.

Different cadences and resistances in sub-maximal synchronous handcycling in able-bodied men: Effects on efficiency and force application.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of an add-on handcycle, a crank system that can be placed in front of a wheelchair, handcycling was made widely available for daily life. With it, people go into town more easily, e.g. to do groceries; meet up with friends, etc. They have more independency and can be socially active. Our aim is to explore some settings of the handcycle, so that it can be optimally used as a transportation device. Therefore, the effects of cadence and added resistance on gross mechanical efficiency and force application during sub-maximal synchronous handcycling were investigated. We hypothesized that a cadence of 52 rpm with a higher resistance (35 W) would lead to a higher gross mechanical efficiency and a more tangential force application than a higher cadence of 70 rpm and no extra resistance (15 W). METHODS: Twelve able-bodied men rode in an instrumented add-on handcycle on a motorized level treadmill at 1.94 m/s. They performed three sessions of three four-minute blocks of steady state exercise. Gear (70, 60 and 52 rpm) was changed in-between the blocks and resistance (rolling resistance +0 W, +10 W, +20 W) was changed across sessions, both in a counterbalanced order. 3D force production, oxygen uptake and heart rate were measured continuously. Gross mechanical efficiency (ME) and fraction of effective force (FEF) were calculated as main outcomes. The effects of cadence and resistance were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA (P<0.05) with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: With a decrease in cadence a slight increase in ME (70 rpm: 5.5 (0.2)%, 60 rpm: 5.7 (0.2)%, 52 rpm: 5.8 (0.2)%, P = 0.008, η2p = 0.38), while an increase in FEF (70 rpm: 58.0 (3.2)%, 60 rpm: 66.0 (2.8)%, 52 rpm: 71.3 (2.3)%, P<0.001, η2p = 0.79) is seen simultaneously. Also with an increase in resistance an increase in ME (+0 W: 4.0 (0.2)%, +10 W: 6.0 (0.3)%, +20 W: 7.0 (0.2)%, P<0.001, η2p = 0.92) and FEF (+0 W: 59.0 (2.9)%, +10 W: 66.1 (3.4)%, +20 W: 70.2 (2.4)%, P<0.001, η2p = 0.56) was found. INTERPRETATION: A cadence of 52 rpm against a higher resistance of about 35 W leads to a more optimal direction of forces and is more mechanically efficient than propelling at a higher cadence or lower resistance. Therefore, changing gears on a handcycle is important, and it is advised to keep the linear hand velocity relatively low for locomotion purposes.