Search

Inter-limb differences in Achilles tendon mechanical, material and morphological properties have previously been described in non-athletes and attributed to the preferential use of a given limb. Achilles tendon overuse tendon injury generally initiate unilaterally and alters triceps surae activation and Achilles tendon properties. The investigation of inter-limb differences in muscle activation and tendon properties may provide directions for injury prevention in habitual runners. In this study triceps surae and Achilles tendon properties were investigated bilaterally in habitual runners during unilateral maximal isometric contractions. Morphological, mechanical and material Achilles tendon properties were assessed using isokinetic dynamometry, motion capture and ultrasonography while triceps surae activation strategies were assessed using electromyography. Lower limb preference was assessed for inter-limb comparisons using the Waterloo questionnaire. Zero and one-dimensional statistical analysis and Cohen’s d were employed to investigate possible inter-limb differences. Inter-limb associations in Achilles tendon properties and intra-limb associations between triceps surae activations were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. No differences were observed between the preferred and non-preferred limb in terms of triceps surae muscle activation amplitude and Achilles tendon properties. However, intra-limb association among triceps surae activation ratios were not identical between limbs. Runners and triathletes present similar Achilles tendons properties between limbs, and thus initial observations of unilateral changes in the Achilles tendon properties might be used as a strategy to prevent the onset of overuse tendon injury. The non-similar associations within activation ratios between limbs should be further explored since triceps surae activation strategies may alter loading of the Achilles tendon.

Previous studies have been limited to describe asymmetries during pedalling and suggest possible repercussion on performance and/or injury risks. However, few studies have presented strategies to mitigate asymmetries. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a pedalling retraining intervention to reduce bilateral pedal force asymmetries. Twenty cyclists were assessed and 10 enrolled in a pedalling retraining method receiving visual and verbal feedback of pedal forces. The asymmetry index was computed for comparison of bilateral peak pedal forces and used during retraining (12 trials at 70% of peak power). Significantly larger asymmetry was observed for asymmetrical cyclists at the first three trials (P 0.01 and ES = 1.39), which was reduced when post-retraining was compared to measures from symmetrical cyclists (P = 0.69 and ES = 0.18). Cyclists with larger asymmetry (20%) in bilateral pedal forces reduce their asymmetries using sessions of pedalling retraining and achieve asymmetry indices similar to symmetrical cyclists.

Context:Unassisted single-leg cycling should be replaced by assisted single-leg cycling, given that this last approach has potential to mimic joint kinetics and kinematics from double-leg cycling. However, there is need to test if assisting devices during pedaling effectively replicate joint forces and torque from double-leg cycling.Objectives:To compare double-leg, single-leg assisted, and unassisted cycling in terms of lower-limb kinetics and kinematics.Design:Cross-sectional crossover.Setting:Laboratory.Participants:14 healthy nonathletes.Interventions:Two double-leg cycling trials (240 ± 23 W) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W) at 90 rpm were performed for 2 min using a bicycle attached to a cycle trainer. Measurements of pedal force and joint kinematics of participants’ right lower limb were performed during double- and single-leg trials. For the single-leg assisted trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral crank.Main Outcome Measures:Peak hip, knee, and ankle torques (flexors and extensors) along with knee-flexion angle and peak patellofemoral compressive force.Results:Reduced peak hip-extensor torque (10%) and increased peak knee-flexor torque (157%) were observed at the single-leg assisted cycling compared with the double-leg cycling. No differences were found for peak patellofemoral compressive force or knee-flexion angle comparing double-leg with single-leg assisted cycling. However, single-leg unassisted cycling resulted in larger peak patellofemoral compressive force (28%) and lower knee-flexion angle (3%) than double-leg cycling.Conclusions:These results suggest that although single-leg assisted cycling differs for joint torques, it replicates knee loads from double-leg cycling.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific adaptation from training can elicit similar muscle volume and muscle activation between cyclists and triathletes which differ in comparison to non-athletes. OBJECTIVE: To compare muscle volume, muscle activation and pedal forces of cyclists, triathletes and non-athletes. METHODS: Twelve cyclists, ten triathletes and twelve non-athletes performed an incremental test to determine their maximal power output (POMAX). Quadriceps and triceps surae volume were estimated from ultrasound images taken at rest, while pedal forces and muscle activation were recorded at POMAX at 90 rpm. RESULTS: Quadriceps volume was larger in cyclists (∼22%, p < 0.04) and triathletes (∼40%, p < 0.01) compared to nonathletes. Higher activation of rectus femoris (∼55%, p = 0.01) and tibialis anterior (∼88%, p = 0.01) were observed for triathletes compared to non-athletes at the first quarter of the pedaling cycle. Triathletes also showed higher activation for tibialis anterior than cyclists (∼68%, p = 0.03) at the first quarter. Non-athletes applied greater force on the pedal compared to triathletes at the first quarter (∼42%, p < 0.01). Pedal force effectiveness was higher for athletes (37–44%, p < 0.02) compared to nonathletes at the fourth quarter. CONCLUSIONS: Similar muscle volume and muscle activation between cyclists and triathletes may be related to a similar training volume supporting differences relative to non-athletes.

To use single-leg cycling training for varying populations, it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg. Therefore, we compared single-leg assisted cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank for joint kinetics, kinematics, and lower-limb muscle activation. Fourteen healthy nonathletes performed 2 bilateral cycling trials (240 ± 23 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) for measurements of pedal force, joint kinematics, and muscle activation of their right lower limb. For 1 single-leg trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral leg. Total force applied on the pedal, pedal force effectiveness, the mean joint angles and range of motion, mechanical work at the crank, hip, knee, and ankle joints, electromyography, pedaling cadence, and right crank mechanical work were assessed. Biceps femoris (87%), vastus lateralis (15%), rectus femoris (57%), tibialis anterior (57%), and gastrocnemius medialis (12%) activations were larger in the single-leg assisted trial compared with the bilateral trial. Lower total pedal force (17%) and increased index of effectiveness (16%) also indicate mechanical differences in single-leg cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank than conventional bilateral cycling. Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling.