Validation of LEOMO inertial measurement unit sensors with marker-based three-dimensional motion capture during maximum sprinting in track cyclists.

LEOMO™ is a commercial inertial measurement unit system that provides cycling-specific motion performance indicators (MPIs) and offers a mobile solution for monitoring cyclists. We aimed to validate the LEOMO sensors during sprint cycling using gold-standard marker-based three-dimensional (3D) motion technology (Qualisys, AB). Our secondary aim was to explore the relationship between peak power during sprints and MPIs. Seventeen elite track cyclists performed 3 × 15s seated start maximum efforts on a cycle ergometer. Based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1), the MPIs derived from 3D and LEOMO showed moderate agreement (0.50 < 0.75) for the right foot angular range (FAR); left foot angular range first quadrant (FARQ1); right leg angular range (LAR); and mean angle of the pelvis in the sagittal plane. Agreement was poor (ICC < 0.50) between MPIs derived from 3D and LEOMO for the left FAR, right FARQ1, left LAR, and mean range of motion of the pelvis in the frontal and transverse planes. Only one LEOMO-derived (pelvic rotation) and two 3D-derived (right FARQ1 and FAR) MPIs showed large positive significant correlations with peak power. Caution is advised regarding use of the LEOMO for short maximal cycling efforts and derived MPIs to inform peak sprint cycling power production.

Foot tracking can be an alternative to determine foot strike and take-off during vertical jumps.

Determining foot strike and take-off during vertical jumps is essential to calculate a range of performance measures, which normally requires the use of expensive equipment such as force platforms. This study evaluated whether tracking the foot centre of mass(CoM) and hallux could be suitable alternatives to determine foot strike and take-off during jumps. Thirteen recreational runners performed six unilateral jumps. Foot strike and take-off instants were observed using three algorithms from foot CoM, pelvis CoM and the hallux marker and results were compared with data determined by the force platform. Bland-Altman method and Cohen effect sizes were used to assess the differences between methods. For foot strike, the difference between the foot CoM and the force platform (12 ms, d < 0.01) was smaller than using the pelvis CoM (46 ms, d < 0.01) and similar to the hallux (16 ms, d < 0.01). For the take-off, the foot CoM produced the smallest difference (i.e., 4 ms, d < 0.01; pelvis = 22 ms, d < 0.01 and hallux = 18 ms, d < 0.01). The foot CoM seems to yield the closest agreement with the force platform when determining foot strike and take-off during vertical jumps. However, the hallux marker can be used as an alternative to the foot CoM once corrected for mean bias.

Biomechanical and physiological implications to running after cycling and strategies to improve cycling to running transition: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review summarises biomechanical, physiological and performance factors affecting running after cycling and explores potential effective strategies to improve performance during running after cycling. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The literature search included all documents available until 14th December 2021 from Medline, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and Scopus. Studies were screened against the Appraisal tool for Cross-sectional Studies to assess methodological quality and risk of bias. After screening the initial 7495 articles identified, fulltext screening was performed on 65 studies, with 39 of these included in the systematic review. RESULTS: The majority of studies observed detrimental effects, in terms of performance, when running after cycling compared to a control run. Unclear implications were identified from a biomechanical and physiological perspective with studies presenting conflicting evidence due to varied experimental designs. Changes in cycling intensity and cadence have been tested but conflicting evidence was observed in terms of biomechanical, physiological and performance outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Because methods to simulate cycle to run transition varied between studies, findings were conflicting as to whether running after cycling differed compared to a form of control run. Although most studies presented were rated high to very high quality, it is not possible to state that prior cycling does affect subsequent running, from a physiological point of view, with unclear responses in terms of biomechanical outcomes. In terms of strategies to improve running after cycling, it is unclear if manipulating pedalling cadence or intensity affects subsequent running performance.

Does saddle height affect patellofemoral and tibiofemoral forces during bicycling for rehabilitation?

The aim of the present study was to measure saddle height effects on knee joint load. Nine uninjured non-cyclists were evaluated in three saddle heights: 100% of trochanteric height-REF; 103% of REF-HIGH; and 97% of REF-LOW. Two-dimensional sagittal plane force applied on the pedal and kinematics were recorded. After inverse dynamics of the lower limb, knee resultant force was computed as tibiofemoral normal and shear components and compressive patellofemoral force. Peak patellofemoral compressive force and peak compressive and shear tibiofemoral forces did not differ when saddle height was changed. Knee angle at the lower crank position increased at LOW compared to REF and HIGH saddle height (p<0.02). Small saddle height changes (±3%) did not affect knee joint load, at low workloads on uninjured subjects, while changes in knee angle did not relate to effects on joint forces. These findings suggest that setting saddle height by knee angle secures the maintenance of joint load at low workloads on uninjured subjects.