Respiratory Mechanical and Cardiorespiratory Consequences of Cycling with Aerobars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aerobars place a cyclist in a position where the trunk is flexed forward and the elbows are close to the midline of the body. This position is known to improve cycling aerodynamics and time trial race performance compared with upright cycling positions. However, the aggressive nature of this position may have important cardiorespiratory and metabolic consequences. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the respiratory mechanical, ventilatory, metabolic, and sensory consequences of cycling while using aerobars during laboratory-based cycling. METHODS: Eleven endurance-trained male cyclists (age, 26 ± 9 yr; V˙O2peak, 55 ± 5 mL·kg·min) were recruited. Visit 1 consisted of an incremental cycling test to determine peak power output. Visit 2 consisted of 6-min bouts of constant load cycling at 70% of peak incremental power output in the aerobar position, drop position, and upright position while grasping the brake hoods. Metabolic and ventilatory responses were measured using a commercially available metabolic cart, and respiratory pressures were measured using an esophageal catheter. RESULTS: Cycling in the aerobar position significantly increased the work of breathing (Wb), power of breathing (Pb), minute ventilation, ventilatory equivalent for oxygen and carbon dioxide, and transdiaphragmatic pressure compared with the upright position. Increases in the Wb and Pb in the aerobars relative to the upright position were strongly correlated with the degree of thoracic restriction, measured as the shoulder-to-aerobar width ratio (Wb: r = 0.80, P = 0.01; Pb: r = 0.69, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Aerobars significantly increase the mechanical cost of breathing and leads to greater ventilatory inefficiency compared with upright cycling. Future work is needed to optimize aerobar width to minimize the respiratory mechanical consequences while optimizing aerodynamics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".