Influence of Position and Power Output on Upper Limb Kinetics in Cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several suggestions on the upper limb involvement in cycling exist but, to date, no study has quantified upper limb kinetics in this task. The aim of this study was to determine how crank power and pedaling position (seated or standing) affect upper limb kinetics. Handlebar loadings and upper limb kinematics were collected from 17 participants performing seated or standing pedaling trials in a random order at 6 crank powers ranging from 20% (112 ± 19 W) to 120% (675 ± 113 W) of their spontaneous sit-to-stand transition power. An inverse dynamics approach was used to compute 3D moments, powers, and works at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints. Over 29 parameters investigated, increases in crank power were associated with increases in the magnitudes of 23 and 20 of the kinetic variables assessed in seated and standing positions, respectively. The standing position was associated with higher magnitudes of upper limb kinetics. These results suggest that both upper and lower limbs should be considered in future models to better understand whole body coordination in cycling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".