Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ...

Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS

OF UPHILL CYCLING: A REVIEW

Borut Fonda1 and Nejc Šarabon1,2

S2P Ltd., Laboratory for Motor Control and Motor Behaviour, Ljubljana, Slovenia
1

2
University of Primorska, Science and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research,
Koper, Slovenia

Review
UDC: 577.35:612.766:796.61:796.015

Abstract:
The winners of the major cycling 3-week stage races (i.e. Giro d’Italia, Tour de France, Vuelta a Espana)
are usually riders who dominate in the uphill sections of the race. Amateur cyclists, however, will often
avoid uphill terrain because of the discomfort involved. Therefore, understanding movement behavior during
uphill cycling is needed in order to find an optimum solution that can be applied in practice. The aim of this
review is to assess the quality of research performed on biomechanics and the energetics of uphill cycling.
Altogether we have analyzed over 40 articles from scientific and expert periodicals that provided results on
energetics, pedal and joint forces, economy and efficiency, muscular activity, as well as performance and
comfort optimization during uphill cycling. During uphill cycling, cyclists need to overcome gravity and
in order to achieve this, some changes in posture are necessary. The main results from this review are that
changes in muscular activity are present, while on the other hand pedal forces, joint dynamics, and cycling
efficiency are not substantially altered during seated uphill cycling compared to cycling on level terrain.
In contrast, during standing uphill cycling, all of the previously mentioned measures are different when
comparing either seated uphill cycling or level terrain cycling. Further research should focus on outdoor
studies and steeper slopes.

Key words: performance, efficiency, biomechanics, physiology, optimization

Introduction From a racing point of view, uphill cycling can often

Cycling has been the subject of discussion in be the deciding factor that determines the winner
many of the published scientific reviews (Ericson, (Bertucci, Grappe, Girard, Betik, & Rouillon 2005;
1986; Wozniak Timmer, 1991; di Prampero, 2000; Hansen & Waldeland, 2008). This can be deduced
Jeukendrup & Martin, 2001; Atkinson, Davison, from the fact that in previous years, the winners
Jeukendrup, & Passfield, 2003; Faria, Parker, & of the major 3-week stage races (i.e. Giro d’Italia,
Faria, 2005; Bini & Diefenthaeler, 2009; Hug & Tour de France, Vuelta a Espana) have generally
Dorel, 2009). Research in cycling has generally been riders who excelled in the hilly climbing
concentrated either on a set of particular and prac- sections of the races. On the other hand, in leisure
tically relevant problems such as enhancing per- cycling, if cyclists are sufficiently trained to cope
formance (Jeukendrup & Martin, 2001; Faria, et al., with hills, uphill terrains often cause discomfort
2005), improving rehabilitation protocols (Ericson, due to different mechanical loads on the spine.
1986), improving comfort (Gámez, et al., 2008), and Consequently, many leisure cyclists tend to avoid
preventing the harmful effects caused by cycling hills (Fonda, Panjan, Markovic, & Sarabon, 2011).
(Burke, 1994; de Vey Mestdagh, 1998; Silberman, During uphill cycling, riders need to overcome
Webner, Collina, & Shiple, 2005), or on the more gravity, which increases the demands for mechani-
basic aspects of locomotion during cycling (Too, cal power. Because of the inclination of the surface,
1990; Coyle, et al., 1991; di Prampero, 2000; Bini they need to adapt their posture for two primary
& Diefenthaeler, 2009; Fonda & Sarabon, 2010a). reasons: first, to avoid lifting the front wheel and,
All of the previously mentioned reviews were second, to ensure that they keep a stable position on
mainly focused on studies that included level terrain the saddle, so that they do not slide off (Figure 1).
cycling with little or no emphasis on uphill cycling. Mountain bikers have to succeed in overcoming

5
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

even more demanding terrain conditions: they need the presented experimental data and with some
to ensure that there is enough traction on the rear directions for future research in the field.
wheel while simultaneously making sure the front When searching through the available litera-
wheel stays on the ground. To accomplish this, the ture, we focused on professional and scientific pa-
mountain bikers have to shift their body forward on pers from the following databases: Pubmed, Sci-
the saddle and flex their trunk (by leaning forward). enceDirect, and Springerlink. We combed through
This change in posture alters some of the charac- them by using keywords such as biomechanics, en-
teristics of pedaling. Such changes can be reflected ergetics, equation, forces, joints, EMG (i.e. electro-
in (1) different mechanical demands (di Prampero, myography) and performance, while including the
2000), (2) changed economy and efficiency (Mo- words uphill and cycling. We noted over 40 profes-
seley & Jeukendrup, 2001), (3) altered cycling kin- sional and scientific papers. In the review tables
ematics and kinetics (Bertucci, et al., 2005), and (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) we have included 13
(4) modified neuromuscular activation patterns articles that directly reported studies on biomechan-
(Sarabon, Fonda, & Markovic, 2011). Changes ics and/or energetics of uphill cycling.
can also be reflected in health-related issues dur-
ing cycling. For example, lower back pain is one Equations of uphill cycling
of the most common cycling injuries (Marsden & During level terrain cycling at constant speed,
Schwellnus, 2010) and based on previous research the amount of energy wasted against gravitational
(Salai, Brosh, Blankstein, Oran, & Chechik, 1999) forces with each pedal stroke is minimal, although
we can assume that the lower back pain issue can inertial forces have been reported to have some in-
intensify when cyclists adjust their posture due to fluence on pedal forces (Kautz & Hull, 1993). There-
uphill terrain characteristics (e.g. increased tensile fore, a cyclist performs almost all of the mechanical
forces on lumbar vertebra). work (WC) against two main opposing forces (Equa-
tion 1): the rolling resistance (R R) and
the air resistance (R A), whose resultant
is the total resistance (RT) (van Ingen
Schenau & Cavanagh, 1990). R R is the
energy loss as the wheels roll along the
surface and it depends substantially on
the mass of the bicycle and rider sys-
tem, the acceleration of gravity, and
a coefficient describing the inflation
pressure of the tires, the characteris-
tics of the surface and the type of the
tires (di Prampero, Cortili, Mognoni,
& Saibene, 1979). The R A is a func-
tion of the frontal plane area of the cy-
clist and the bike, the air density and
Figure 1. Differences in posture between level terrain (A) and uphill cycling the air velocity. At higher speeds, R R
(B). The hip angle (α), shoulder angle (β), and elbow angle (γ) are all smaller becomes a progressively smaller frac-
during uphill cycling. The position on the saddle is shifted forward (a) and
the back is more rounded (b) during uphill cycling. tion of RT. In practice, the estimation
of the frontal plane area can be done
either by using elaborate tests, such as
Understanding movement patterns during up- a rolldown (de Groot, Sargeant, & Geysel, 1995),
hill cycling is necessary when searching for opti- tractive towing (di Prampero, et al., 1979) or wind-
mal solutions or enhancements, which can be then tunnel experiments (Kyle, 1991), or by more simpli-
applied in practice. In the first part of this paper we fied methods, such us using photographic weighing
will focus on the equations of motion of cyclists or planimetry (Olds & Olive, 1999). It is also com-
during uphill cycling and try to address some of mon to measure the R A first (using, for example, a
the practical implications in this field. The next wind tunnel) and then calculating the frontal plane
chapter focuses on economy and efficiency during area from that estimate.
uphill cycling. Patterns of kinetics and kinematics WC = a + b · v2 Equation 1
during uphill cycling are subsequently presented,
with an emphasis on pedal forces, joint moments CC = WC · η -2
Equation 2
and joint movements. Neuromuscular alterations In Equation 1, WC is the mechanical work per-
during uphill cycling are presented in the next part. formed per unit of distance, v is the air speed and,
In the final part, some of the practical solutions for a and b are constants for R R and R A per unit of dis-
improving uphill cycling are addressed. The paper tance, respectively. The energy cost (CC) of cycling
concludes by summarizing the applied values of depends on overall cycling efficiency (η) (Equation

6
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

2). The mechanical efficiency of cycling is not far

from 25%; however, it depends upon the cadence
(pedal frequency) which increases from 42 to 60
rpm as the power output is increased from 50 to 300
W (di Prampero, 1986, 2000; Ericson, 1988). How-
ever, well-trained cyclists usually opt for higher pe-
daling frequencies (Kohler & Boutellier, 2005). In
general, during uphill cycling, cyclists develop high
forces at low cadences that are likely to be more
economical; in contrast, on flat ground, they in-
crease their cadence because their aerodynamic
posture does not allow for high force production
(Mognoni & di Prampero, 2003). In contrast, Dorel,
Couturier, and Hug (2009) showed that cyclists can
apply greater forces at the power phase of the crank
cycle with an aerodynamic posture compared to an Figure 2. Main opposing forces during uphill cycling. Where
g is acceleration due to gravity; R A is aerodynamic drag,
upright posture. The reason why competing cyclists R R are tractive resistive forces, and γ is angle of the terrain.
opt for higher pedal frequencies instead of the op-
timal rate was discussed by di Prampero in his re-
view (di Prampero, 2000) with plausible explana-
can be expressed as the product of M, g and sinus γ
tions in the reduced anaerobic energy releases to
(Equation 6), where γ is the angle of the road slope.
compensate for the slight fall in efficiency. Higher
cadences were then explained by overall muscle WCG = M · g · h · d-1 Equation 5
activation (MacIntosh, Neptune, & Horton, 2000), WCG = M · g · sin γ Equation 6
reduced joint moments (Marsh, Martin, & Sander- A more detailed description of the WC can be
son, 2000) and consequently lower resistive force achieved by including the R R and R A in the calcula-
to sustain similar power output. tions (Equation 7).
The mechanical power (PC) required to cycle
at a constant speed is given by the product of WC WC = a + b · s2 + M · g · sin γ Equation 7
and the speed (s) (Equation 3), while the metabolic The CC can be calculated by substituting a and b
power (EC) is defined as the product of CC and s in Equation 7 with the constants for metabolic ener-
(Equation 4). Both, PC and EC, are expressed in gy dissipated against R R (α, since α = a · η-1) and R A
Watts, since according to SI units, CC is expressed (β, since β = b · η-1), respectively, and dividing the
in J/m and s in m/s. last term by η (Equation 8). The EC can be further
PC = WC · s Equation 3 estimated by the same principle used during level
EC = CC · s Equation 4 terrain cycling as a product of CC and s (Equation
9). The mechanical efficiency has been shown not
Equations 1, 2, 3 and 4 become practical when to change during uphill cycling (Millet, Tronche,
all data is known. By using the commercially avail- Fuster, & Candau, 2002).
able power meters (e.g. SRM® or Cycleops Power
Tab®) the power output and velocity are known, CC = α + β ∙ s2 + M · g · sin γ · η-1 Equation 8
therefore the RT can be calculated as external power EC = α ∙ s + β ∙ s3 + M ∙ g ∙ s ∙ sinγ ∙ η-1 Equation 9
output divided by the velocity (Grappe, et al., 1999; With these equations, we can estimate some of
Lim, et al., 2011). With a constant tire pressure and the important practical values. For example, in his
a change in body position, only R A is altered. This review, di Prampero (2000) estimated the maxi-
technique could be extremely valuable in helping mal incline of the slope that the cyclist could over-
cyclists, coaches and scientists to predict and im- come. This is possible if the subjects’ maximal EC
prove cycling performance (Lim, et al., 2011). is known and the lowest speed value at which the
During uphill cycling, at a given power output, cyclist does not lose his/her balance is assigned.
the R A becomes a relatively smaller fraction of the However, these estimations can only be made for a
RT and the main opposing force becomes accelera- smooth terrain and with the use of an appropriate
tion due to gravity. Opposing forces during uphill gear system to ensure optimum pedal frequency at
cycling are summarized in Figure 2. a very low speed.
The mechanical work performed against grav- Furthermore, by using the results from Equa-
ity (WCG) when cycling uphill is given by the prod- tion 8 in Equation 4, and knowing EC, the velocity
uct of the overall moving mass (M), the accelera- can be calculated on every specific slope (Welber-
tion due to gravity (g) and vertical displacement gen & Clijsen, 1990). Welbergen and Clijsen (1990)
(h). When expressed per unit of distance covered estimated the incline at which the cyclist would ben-
along the road (d) (Equation 5), mechanical work efit from an upright position when compared to the

7
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

standard racing position. The EC for the upright po- that the efficiency would be altered during steeper
sition is 20% higher than for the racing position slopes, mainly because of the decrease in cadence
(Welbergen & Clijsen, 1990). With this informa- (Swain & Wilcox, 1992).
tion, the authors estimated that the incline where
air resistance was no longer the limiting factor was Cycling economy
approximately 7.5%. This information could benefit The term is used as a measure of oxygen con-
both coaches and cyclists regarding the posture they sumption per unit of power output (Moseley &
should adopt during the uphill sections of a race. Jeukendrup, 2001). It can also be expressed as the
oxygen consumption required to cycle at a given
Efficiency and economy during uphill speed (Swain & Wilcox, 1992). The factors that
cycling influence cycling economy vary with the conditions
under which cycling is performed (Table 1). Swain
Cycling efficiency and Wilcox (1992) showed that a well-trained
cyclist is more economical when using a higher
Cycling efficiency has been described as the
pedaling frequency during seated uphill cycling
ratio of work accomplished to energy cost, which
than using a lower pedal frequency in either the
depends on the cadence (Gaesser & Brooks, 1975),
seated or standing position. In contrast, Harnish,
feet position (Disley & Li, 2012), body position King and Swensen (2007) showed that trained
(Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen, 1991), and muscle cyclists are equally economical using high or low
fiber type (Coyle, Sidossis, Horowitz, & Beltz, cadences, although they found a significant increase
1992). Several calculations for efficiency have in ventilation (6%) and breathing frequency (8%)
been proposed, mainly differentiated by a baseline during standing uphill cycling when compared to
correction factor that is used to correct the estimate the seated position. That could be explained by the
of the energy expenditure and therefore of the rhythmic pattern of breathing in coordination with
measured level of efficiency (Gaesser & Brooks, the locomotion during pedaling while standing.
1975; Millet, et al., 2002). Gross cycling efficiency The results obtained by Millet et al. (2002)
has been demonstrated to be highly correlated with showed that there are no significant differences in
cycling performance and has a low variability and economy during uphill cycling (seated and stand-
detects smaller changes in exercise efficiency over ing) compared to level terrain. However, heart rates
several trials (Millet, et al., 2002). were found to be higher (6%) during standing uphill
Millet et al. (2002) examined the cycling gross cycling as opposed to the seated position.
efficiency during level 5.3% uphill seated and Increased ventilation during standing uphill
5.3% uphill standing conditions. The gradient does cycling was accompanied by an increase in
not appear to be a factor that influences cycling breathing frequency, which seems to be related to
efficiency at the same power output. Similarly, the rhythmic pattern of pedaling. Uphill cycling
Leirdal and Ettema (2011) found no significant does not appear to be a factor that influences cycling
differences in gross efficiency, force effectiveness efficiency, although more research is necessary,
and dead center size between the level and 11% especially during steeper slopes, to confirm these
uphill cycling conditions. However, it is likely conclusions.

Table 1. A review of studies on efficiency and economy during uphill cycling

Publication Cyclists Slope Findings

8 well-trained Gross cycling efficiency and economy were not significantly different
Millet et al. (2002) 5.3%
cyclists among the level seated, uphill seated, or uphill standing position.

Ventilation and breathing frequency were significantly higher during

8 well-trained
Harnish et al. (2007) 5% standing compared to seated uphill cycling. Trained cyclists are in general
cyclists
equally economical using high or low cadences during uphill cycling.

Cyclists were more economical using a high cadence (84 rpm) in seated
Swain and Wilcox 14 well-trained
10% position than by using a low cadence (41 rpm) in either the seated or
(1992) cyclists
standing position.

Trained cyclists performed better standing rather than seated at the

highest intensities. The intensity of exercise that characterized the
Hansen and 10 well-trained
10% transition from seated to standing was found to be approximately 94% of
Waldeland (2008) cyclists
maximal aerobic power. At lower power outputs, there was no difference
between seated or standing uphill cycling.

Leirdal and Ettema 10-well trained There was no difference in gross efficiency, force effectiveness and dead
11%
(2011) cyclists centre size between a level and inclined cycling condition.

8
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Kinematics and the kinetics of uphill peak torque from bilateral measures (Bini, Hume,
cycling & Cerviri, 2011). Minor effects on the crank torque
profile could also be present due to the mechanical
Pedal and crank kinetics during uphill properties (i.e. stiffness and damping) of the bicycle
cycling ergometer.
Alterations in kinetic patterns of pedal force The pedal and crank kinetics during uphill
and crank torque due to various changes during cycling studies are presented in Table 2.
cycling have only been investigated in a few stud- In outdoors conditions, and at the same ca-
ies. A major problem is the equipment needed to dences (80 rpm), Bertucci et al. (2005) reported
evaluate the forces and torque on the pedal or crank. that the crank torque profile was slightly modified
Instrumented pedals (Álvarez & Vinyolas, 1996; during uphill cycling compared to a level terrain.
Hoes, Binkhorst, Smeekes-Kuyl, & Vissers, 1968; The highest difference was observed at 45° of the
Reiser, Peterson, & Broker, 2003) which normally crank cycle (30.7 vs. 22.8 Nm for level and uphill
measure the forces applied at the foot/pedal interface terrain, respectively), although no differences were
were used to: study the kinetics under different observed for peak values. These results vary from
cadence and workload conditions (Kautz, Feltner, those of Hansen et al. (2002) who found differenc-
Coyle, & Baylor, 1991), as an input for inverse dyna- es in peak torque during cycling with a high and
mics to evaluate joint moments (Redfield & Hull, low crank inertial load. The differences could be
1986), or to assess the determinants of performance explained by the fact that the study of Hansen et
in cycling (Coyle, et al., 1991). Caldwell, McColle, al. (2002) was conducted on a motorized treadmill
Hagberg and Li (1998) studied the crank torque with good control over the velocity, while in the
profile while moving uphill (8%) and level terrain field study of Bertucci et al. (2005) the cycling ve-
cycling and found no significant differences in the locity was more prone to oscillations. According to
general crank torque profile when comparing at the data gathered by Bertucci et al. (2007) the peak
the same cadence in a seated condition. According torque and minimal torque both occur 5° later in the
to Bertucci et al. (2005), the reasons for this can crank cycle, even though the values of the torque
be found in the crank inertial load, which is lower were very similar.
during uphill cycling because it depends on the
gear ratio and the mass of the cyclist (Hansen, Joint moments and kinematics during
Jørgensen, Jensen, Fregly, & Sjøgaard, 2002). uphill cycling
Hansen et al. (2002) observed that the crank torque The studies on joint kinematics and kinetics
profile was modified by varying the crank inertial during cycling were mainly performed on level ter-
load. They showed that when cycling with a high rain (Leirdal & Ettema, 2011; Bini & Diefenthaeler,
crank inertial load, peak torque was significantly 2010; Bini, Tamborindeguy, & Mota, 2010; Bini,
higher. Crank-to-torque profiles observed during Diefenthaeler, & Mota, 2010; Ericson, Bratt, Nisell,
laboratory conditions are probably affected by the Németh, & Ekholm, 1986). Despite being practical-
crank inertial load and the data should thus be ly important, these biomechanical studies of uphill
interpreted with caution. The latter was confirmed cycling are relatively unknown. The authors of this
by Bertucci, Grappe and Groslambert (2007) who review were only aware of one study that had ex-
found alterations in the crank torque profile during amined joint kinetics and kinematics during uphill
laboratory conditions compared to outdoor road cycling (Caldwell, Hagberg, McCole, & Li, 1999).
conditions. However, their data should be taken In their study, Caldwell et al. (1999) reported
with caution, as they used the SRM torque analysis that 8% uphill cycling showed a significant increase
system, which has been shown to underestimate in the magnitude of the peak ankle plantarflexor

Table 2. A review of studies on pedal and crank kinetics during uphill cycling

Publication Cyclists Slope Findings

Overall patterns of pedal and crank kinetics were similar between level
and 8% uphill cycling in a seated position. Higher peak pedal force, shift
Caldwell et al. (1998) 8 elite cyclists 8%
of crank torque to later in the crank cycle. A modified pedal orientation
was observed during seated and standing uphill cycling.

The torque was 26% higher at a 45° crank angle in a seated uphill
situation compared to level terrain. At lower cadences, during uphill
Bertucci et al. (2005) 7 male cyclists 9.25%
cycling the peak torque value was significantly (42%) higher compared
to higher cadences during level terrain cycling.

No visual differences between level terrain and seated uphill cycling.

Alvarez and Vinyolas
1 male cyclist 8-9% More drastically increased pedal forces were observed during standing
(1996)
uphill cycling.

9
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

(25%) and knee extensor (15%) moments, and a by observing the timing and intensity of muscular
shift of these peak moments to earlier in the crank activity using surface electromyography (EMG) (for
cycle (12° and 15°, respectively). During standing a review see Hug and Dorel, 2009).
uphill cycling, the ankle plantar flexor moment in- The timing and the intensity of muscular ac-
creased by 160% and was shifted forwards by 45° tivity can be altered when changing the seat height
in the crank cycle, when compared to the uphill (Ericson, et al., 1985; Sanderson & Amoroso, 2009),
seated position. The knee extensor profile showed power output (Ericson, et al., 1985; Suzuki, Watan-
an extended bimodal profile with a shift towards abe, & Homma, 1982), pedaling technique (Can-
the late down stroke period, although the peak mo- non, Kolkhorst, & Cipriani, 2007), cadence (Nep-
ment occurred slightly earlier (3°). The knee flexor tune, Kautz, & Hull, 1997) and/or posture (Savel-
moment in the two seated conditions (uphill and berg, Van de Port, & Willems, 2003). Changing the
level) showed a significant increase compared to body posture either by changing the bicycle setup
standing uphill cycling. The patterns for the hip (geometry settings) or by adapting the posture due
joint showed the most similarities across all condi- to the terrain characteristics (e.g. during uphill cy-
tions with only significant alterations in the peak cling) can alter the angle/torque relationship of the
extensor moment during seated uphill conditions, involved muscles (Hof, 2002; Lunnen, Yack, & Le-
as compared to standing uphill conditions. Veau, 1981) and therefore, potentially affect neu-
Changes during uphill standing conditions are romuscular patterns in the lower extremities.
related to the removal of the saddle as a base of Despite the relatively wide body of knowledge
support for the cyclist. As a consequence, there are concerning neuromuscular activation when cycling
higher forces on the pedals, the forward shift in on a level surface, there are only a few published
pedal orientation, and the more forward hip and reports on the effects of uphill cycling (Li & Cald-
knee position (Caldwell, et al., 1998). The transi- well, 1998; Clarys, Alewaeters, & Zinzen, 2001;
tion from a seated to a standing position provokes Duc, Bertucci, Pernin, & Grappe, 2008; Fonda &
large changes to the range of motion of the joints of Sarabon, 2010b; Fonda, et al., 2011; Sarabon, et al.,
the lower limbs. According to Shemmell and Neal 2011). The findings from the published studies are
(1998), the range of motion at the knee during stand- presented in Table 3.
ing uphill cycling (28.7±8.8°) decreased significant-
ly from that of a seated position (73.0±6.4°). This Seated uphill cycling
significant change could be primarily attributed Sarabon et al. (2011) and Fonda et al. (2011)
to the forward translation of the body in relation reported changes in muscle activity patterns during
with the bicycle and also by the fact that some de- steep uphill conditions (20%). The majority of
gree of bicycle tilt is introduced into the movement. changes were observed in muscles that cross the hip
Changes to the position of the body also appear to joint, as well as the m. tibialis anterior. Significant
affect the range of motion in the other joints of the changes in muscle activation timing during 20%
lower limbs. The range of motion at the hip joint uphill cycling, when compared to level terrain, were
(68.8±6.7°) is increased from the sitting position observed in the m. rectus femoris (15° later onset
(42.8±4.9°) and the range of motion for the ankle and 39° earlier offset). The range of activity during
joint (40.5±6°) is increased from that of the seated 20% uphill cycling compared to level terrain was
position (25.7±14.1°). also significantly modified in m. vastus medialis,
Although only slight and non-significant m. vastus lateralis (8° and 5° shorter, respectively)
changes in pedal forces were present during seated and m. biceps femoris (17° longer). Furthermore, a
uphill cycling, an increase in the peak pedal force reduction of the EMG activity level was observed
during standing uphill cycling seems to be related for m. rectus femoris and m. tibialis anterior during
to the removal of saddle support with which the 20% uphill cycling compared to a level terrain (25%
body weight increases the force production. The and 19%, respectively), while the opposite effect
forward translation of the body in relation to the was observed for m. gluteus maximus (12%). No
bicycle provokes a smaller range of motion in the significant changes were observed during 10%
knee, which confirms the previous hypotheses that uphill cycling compared to level terrain.
more work is done by using body weight. The absence of changes in muscles` activation
patterns during uphill cycling on moderate slopes
(up to 10%) appears to be consistent among dif-
Neuromuscular aspect of uphill ferent studies. Specifically, Duc et al. (2008) and
cycling Li and Caldwell (1998) found no significant differ-
Neuromuscular aspects in cycling have been ences in the intensity and timing of muscle activ-
studied extensively (Dorel, Couturier, & Hug, 2008; ity patterns for individual muscles during seated
Ericson, et al., 1985; Hug & Dorel, 2009; Hug, et al., uphill cycling compared with level terrain cycling.
2008). Studies have examined the neuromuscular Conversely, Clarys et al. (2001) reported that global
activation and adaptation of the cycling movement integrated EMG (the average of the four monitored

10
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Table 3. A review of studies on neuromuscular activity during uphill cycling

Publication Cyclists Slope Findings

The muscle activities of GC and BF did not exhibit any profound differences
among varying conditions. Overall, the change of cycling grade alone
Li and Caldwell 10 healthy from 0 to 8% did not induce a significant change in neuromuscular
8%
(1998) students coordination. The postural change from seated to standing pedaling at
an 8% uphill grade was accompanied by the increased and/or prolonged
muscle activity of hip and knee extensors.

Regardless of the position of the pelvis, the muscular intensity of lower

limb muscles increased with increasing slope inclination, while the
12 professional
Clarys et al. (2001) 12% muscular intensity of the arms decreased with the same increasing
road cyclists
slope inclination. In addition, the decreased intensity of the arm muscles
remained significantly higher with the saddle fully forward.

No changes noted in muscle activity patterns during seated uphill

cycling at any slope for any of the muscles. Standing uphill cycling had
a significant effect on the intensity and duration. GM, VM, RF, BF, BB, TA,
10 trained 4, 7 and
Duc et al. (2008) RA and ES activity were greater in standing while SM activity showed a
cyclists 10%
slight decrease. When standing, the global activity of the upper limbs was
higher when the hand grip position was changed from brake level to the
drops, but lower when the lateral sways of the bicycle were constrained.
12 trained
Modified timing and intensity of activity of the RF, BF and GM during a
Fonda et al. (2011) mountain 20 %
20% slope.
bikers
Altered body orientation during a 20% slope, but not a moderate slope
12 trained
10 and of 10%, significantly modified the timing and intensity of several lower
Sarabon et al. (2011) mountain
20% extremity muscles, the most affected being muscles that cross the hip
bikers
joint and TA.

Legend: GC, gastrocnemius; BF, biceps femoris, GM, gluteus maximus; VM, vastus medialis; RF, rectus femoris; BB, biceps
brachi; TA, tibialis anterior; RA, rectus abdominus; ES, erector spinae.

muscles) of the lower extremity muscles increased Among all the muscles tested, arm and trunk mus-
with the increasing slope. However, these authors cles exhibited the most significant increase in activ-
did not study the timing or intensity of the activ- ity. The peak EMG activity of m. gluteus maximus,
ity of individual lower extremity muscles. Hence, m. vastus medialis, m. biceps femoris, m. gastroc-
their results are difficult to compare with the re- nemius and m. soleus shifted later in crank cycle,
sults reported by Li and Caldwell (1998), Duc et al. while the timing of the other monitored muscles
(2008) and Sarabon et al. (2011). To the best of our remained unchanged. Similarly, Li and Caldwell
knowledge, until now only the studies by Fonda et (1998) reported an increase in the EMG activity
al. (2011) and Sarabon et al. (2011) were conduct- of m. gluteus maximus, m. rectus femoris and m.
ed during steep uphill cycling. This is surprising, tibialis anterior and prolonged burst duration of m.
given that slopes around 20% are frequently met gluteus maximus, m. vastus medialis and m. rectus
by mountain bikers (and less frequently by road femoris during standing uphill cycling when com-
cyclists) during races or training sessions. pared to the seated position. The EMG activity of
m. biceps femoris and m. gastrocnemius did not
Standing uphill cycling display significant alterations during standing up-
hill cycling. In contrast to Duc, et al. (2008), altera-
During standing uphill cycling, significant neu- tions were also found in m. tibialis anterior, while
romuscular modifications are to be expected, since no differences were observed in m. biceps femoris.
there is a significant change in body posture and The cause for the differences between the studies
muscle coordination, especially involving increased could be the measurement equipment used. Duc et
activity of the muscles in the upper extremities. Duc al. (2008) used the motorized treadmill, while Li
et al. (2008) found significant alterations in intensity and Caldwell (1998) performed the tests on a sta-
and timing on m. gluteus maximus, m. vastus medi- tionary bicycle ergometer.
alis, m. rectus femoris, m. biceps femoris, m. biceps The results seem to be related to the increase
brachii, m. triceps brachii, m. rectus abdominis, m. of the peak pedal force, the change of the hip and
erector spinae and m. semimembranosus during knee joint moments, the need to stabilize the pelvis
standing uphill cycling. They reported that only the in reference with removing the saddle support, and
muscles crossing the ankle remained unchanged. the forward shift of the center of mass.

11
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Performance and comfort optimization and balanced position. Additionally, by leaning

during uphill cycling and moving forward, the area on which the cyclist
sits is reduced. Therefore, the saddle loses all its
Body position ergonomic characteristics and provokes discomfort.
The effect of the body position has already been It would be beneficial for their comfort if cyclists
partly discussed in the section “Equations of uphill would tilt the saddle forward, thus allowing for the
cycling”. Welbergen and Clijsen (1990) conducted anterior rotation of the pelvis, which helps keep the
a study where they examined the effect of body lumbar lordosis during cycling and subsequently
position (upright and racing position) on maximal decreases the tensile forces on the lumbar vertebrae.
power and oxygen consumption. They concluded By tilting the saddle, the level of support on which
that the trunk angle had a significant effect on the cyclists sit would also increase.
maximal power output delivery in a 3-minute test, In a study by Fonda et al. (2011), a novel bicycle
with the highest amount of power produced in the geometry optimization was used with the goal of
upright position. Based on that data, they estimated enhancing the performance and comfort of cycling
that if a cyclist’s maximal power is assumed to be during uphill conditions. With an adjusted tilt and
20% lower in a racing position, the incline at which the longitudinal position of the saddle they wanted
the cyclist would benefit by being in the upright po- to bring the posture during uphill cycling closer to
sition is approximately 7.5%. At this point, by ne- the posture acquired during level terrain cycling
glecting wind speed, air resistance is no longer the and achieve a more comfortable position (Figure 3).
most limiting factor. The use of the adjusted saddle position during a
The standing position is often employed during 20% slope counteracted the neuromuscular changes,
uphill cycling, especially at lower cadences. It has suggesting that the applied adjustment of the tilt and
been reported that oxygen consumption is lower therefore the position of the saddle was successful
during uphill cycling in a seated compared with a in bringing the posture during uphill cycling closer
standing position at around 45% of maximal oxy- to that of the posture during level terrain cycling.
gen consumption. This indicates that performance Specifically, neither the timing nor the intensity
during uphill cycling at such a low intensity is op- of the activity of the studied muscles differed
timized by using the seated rather than the stand- between 20% uphill cycling with an adjusted saddle
ing position (Ryschon & Stray-Gundersen, 1991). position and level terrain cycling. The exceptions
Knowing more about which position favours per- concerned the onset of m. vastus medialis and offset
formance for more intense cycling would be help- of m. biceps femoris, where statistically significant
ful for cyclists and their coaches. Therefore, Hansen changes were observed during 20% uphill cycling
and Waldeland (2008) conducted a study to examine with an adjusted saddle position versus level terrain
the transition from the seated to the standing posi- cycling. However, these changes were rather small
tion. Their results showed that cycling in a stand- (1.5-6%), and probably not practically relevant.
ing position resulted in a significantly better per- Another interesting finding was that the use of an
formance than seated cycling at the highest power adjusted saddle position during 20% uphill cycling
output (around 165% of maximal aerobic power) was positively perceived by all the participating
while the seated-to-standing transition was identi- cyclists in terms of both their comfort and their
fied at 94% of maximal aerobic power. Below this performance. These results could have practical
intensity, seated cycling is energetically more eco- relevance in terms of improving performance during
nomical than standing. uphill cycling, as well as reducing the prevalence of
lower back pain associated with cycling. Based on
Saddle position pilot studies (S2P, Ltd., personal communication),
When considering health-related issues during the adjusted saddle position was found to be
cycling, lower back pain is certainly among the most transformative in reducing oxygen consumption
common issues (Marsden & Schwellnus, 2010). In (6%) and therefore increasing the economy of uphill
their fluoroscopic/biomechanical and clinical study, cycling. That was later confirmed by a reduction
Salai et al. (1999) showed that tilting the saddle (30-60% decrease) of muscle activity in the upper
forward by 10 to 15° can significantly decrease the extremities (m. brachioradialis). Both parameters
tensile forces on lumbar vertebrae and therefore were measured during 20% uphill cycling in
reduce lower back pain during cycling. Based on laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, the adjusted
their research, we can assume that lower back saddle position requires further investigation,
pain could become even worse if cyclists adjust especially in outdoor conditions.
their posture due to uphill terrain characteristics The use of an adjusted saddle position during
(increased tensile forces on lumbar vertebrae). 20% uphill cycling counteracted the changes in
During uphill cycling, especially on steeper slopes, muscular activity, suggesting that the adjusted sad-
cyclists need to prevent themselves from sliding off dle could be successful in bringing the posture dur-
the saddle and have to ensure that they keep a stable ing uphill cycling closer to that of the level terrain.

12
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

to transfer knowledge into practice and enhance

performance, comfort and safety during cycling.
Since the large majority of races are won in the hilly
sections of the race, scientists should also focus on
bicycle geometry optimization specifically for these
conditions (i.e. “bike-fitting”) instead of for only
“standardized” level terrain conditions.

Conclusions
Unlike level ground cycling, where wind resist-
ance is a major opposing force, uphill cycling re-
quires a great portion of power to overcome grav-
ity. Posture during uphill cycling differs compared
Figure 3. An adjustable saddle position, which enables the to level terrain as aerodynamics no longer play a
cyclists to adjust the angle and position of the saddle by crucial role as the main opposing force. In windless
putting it into three different positions: (1) horizontal position conditions, with a slope that is 7.5% or steeper, it is
(normal), (2) 10% angle of the saddle and (3) 20% angle of
the saddle. Note that the forward movement of the saddle more economical to adopt an upright posture rather
and optimized saddle angle does not alter the saddle height. than just a normal posture with hands on the drops.
The inclination of the terrain forces cyclists to ad-
just their posture to maintain a stable position and
to increase their mechanical output. To accomplish
Further directions for research this, cyclists usually shift forward on the saddle
Current studies are limited either to laborato- and flex the trunk (leaning forward). Seated uphill
ry conditions or small to moderate slopes. Future cycling does not appear to be a factor that influences
biomechanical and physiological studies should be cycling efficiency, pedal forces and joint dynamics,
focused on outdoor conditions and steeper slopes. while the neuromuscular patterns are altered.
Due to the technical difficulties of measuring pedal Sometimes, cyclists stand on the pedals to in-
forces without substantially affecting pedaling by crease their mechanical output. Changing the pos-
abnormal pedal (weight, size, wires, etc.), one goal ture by standing alters some of the characteristics
should be the development of a force pedal that does of locomotion, such as economy and efficiency, kin-
not alter the pedaling technique. Another limitation ematics and kinetics, and neuromuscular activa-
of the outdoor studies is the kinematical evaluation tion patterns. Increased ventilation during stand-
in measuring joint forces and movement. Different ing uphill cycling is accompanied by an increase
measurement equipment should therefore be used in breathing frequency, which seems to be related
for evaluating joint movements. to the rhythmic pattern of pedaling. Additionally,
Steeper slopes are common in mountain bike the forward translation of the body in relation to
races, as well as in road racing. The majority of the bicycle provokes a smaller range of motion in
studies presented in this review were conducted on the knee. Changes in muscle activity during stand-
slopes of up to 12%. Further studies should also fo- ing uphill cycling seem to be related to the increase
cus on steeper slopes (20%) in comparison to level of the peak pedal force, the change of the hip and
terrain cycling. knee joint moments, the need to stabilize the pelvis
Understanding motor behavior and physiological in reference with removing saddle support, and a
responses in such conditions will allow scientists forward shift in the center of mass.

References
Álvarez, G., & Vinyolas, J. (1996). A new bicycle pedal design for on-road measurements of cycling forces. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics, 12(1), 130-142.
Atkinson, G., Davison, R., Jeukendrup, A., & Passfield, L. (2003). Science and cycling: Current knowledge and future
directions for research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(9), 767-787.
Bertucci, W., Grappe, F., Girard, A., Betik, A., & Rouillon, J.D. (2005). Effects on the crank torque profile when
changing pedalling cadence in level ground and uphill road cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(5), 1003–1010.
Bertucci, W., Grappe, F., & Groslambert, A. (2007). Laboratory versus outdoor cycling conditions: Differences in
pedaling biomechanics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 23(2), 87-92.
Bini, R.R., & Diefenthaeler, F. (2009). Mechanical work and coordinative pattern of cycling: A literature review.
Kinesiology, 41(1), 25-39.

13
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Bini, R.R., & Diefenthaeler, F. (2010). Kinetics and kinematics analysis of incremental cycling to exhaustion. Sports
Biomechanics, 9(4), 223-235.
Bini, R.R., Hume, P.A., & Cerviri, A. (2011). A comparison of cycling SRM crank and strain gauge instrumented
pedal measures of peak torque, crank angle at peak torque and power output. Procedia Engineering, 13, 56-61.
Bini, R.R., Diefenthaeler, F., & Mota, C.B. (2010). Fatigue effects on the coordinative pattern during cycling: Kinetics
and kinematics evaluation. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 20(1), 102-107.
Bini, R.R, Tamborindeguy, A.C., & Mota, C.B. (2010). Effects of saddle height, pedaling cadence, and workload on
joint kinetics and kinematics during cycling. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 19(3), 301-314.
Burke, E.R. (1994). Proper fit of the bicycle. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 13(1), 1-14.
Caldwell, G., Hagberg, J., McCole, S., & Li, L. (1999). Lower extremity joint moments during uphill cycling. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics, 15(2), 166-181.
Caldwell, G.E., McCole, S.D., Hagberg, J.M., & Li, L. (1998). Pedal and crank kinetics in uphill cycling. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 14(3), 245-259.
Cannon, D.T., Kolkhorst, F.W., & Cipriani, D.J. (2007). Effect of pedaling technique on muscle activity and cycling
efficiency. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 99(6), 659-664.
Clarys, J.P., Alewaeters, K., & Zinzen, E. (2001). The influence of geographic variations on the muscular activity in
selected sports movements. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 11(6), 451-457.
Coyle, E.F., Feltner, M.E., Kautz, S.A., Hamilton, M.T., Montain, S.J., Baylor, A.M., Abraham, L.D., et al. (1991).
Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 23(1), 93-107.
Coyle, E.F., Sidossis, L.S., Horowitz, J.F., & Beltz, J.D. (1992). Cycling efficiency is related to the percentage of type
I muscle fibers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24(7), 782-788.
de Groot, G., Sargeant, A., & Geysel, J. (1995). Air friction and rolling resistance during cycling. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 27(7), 1090-1095.
de Vey Mestdagh, K. (1998). Personal perspective: In search of an optimum cycling posture. Applied Ergonomics,
29(5), 325-334.
di Prampero, P.E. (1986). The energy cost of human locomotion on land and in water. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 7(2), 55-72.
di Prampero, P.E. (2000). Cycling on Earth, in space, on the Moon. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 82(5-
6), 345-360.
di Prampero, P.E., Cortili, G., Mognoni, P., & Saibene, F. (1979). Equation of motion of a cyclist. Journal of Applied
Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise Physiology, 47(1), 201-206.
Disley, B. X., & Li, F.-X. (2012). The effect of Q Factor on gross mechanical efficiency and muscular activation in
cycling. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01479.x
Dorel, S., Couturier, A., & Hug, F. (2008). Intra-session repeatability of lower limb muscles activation pattern during
pedaling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 18(5), 857-865.
Dorel, S., Couturier, A., & Hug, F. (2009). Influence of different racing positions on mechanical and electromyographic
patterns during pedalling. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19(1), 44-54.
Duc, S., Bertucci, W., Pernin, J.N., & Grappe, F. (2008). Muscular activity during uphill cycling: Effect of slope,
posture, hand grip position and constrained bicycle lateral sways. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
18(1), 116-127.
Ericson, M. (1986). On the biomechanics of cycling. A study of joint and muscle load during exercise on the bicycle
ergometer. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. Supplement, 16, 1-43.
Ericson, M.O. (1988). Mechanical muscular power output and work during ergometer cycling at different work loads
and speeds. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 57(4), 382-387.
Ericson, M.O., Bratt, A., Nisell, R., Németh, G., & Ekholm, J. (1986). Load moments about the hip and knee joints
during ergometer cycling. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 18(4), 165-172.
Ericson, M.O., Nisell, R., Arborelius, U.P., & Ekholm, J. (1985). Muscular activity during ergometer cycling.
Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 17(2), 53-61.
Faria, E.W., Parker, D.L., & Faria, I.E. (2005). The science of cycling: Factors affecting performance - part 2. Sports
Medicine, 35(4), 313-337.
Fonda, B., Panjan, A., Markovic, G., & Sarabon, N. (2011). Adjusted saddle position counteracts the modified muscle
activation patterns during uphill cycling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 21(5), 854-860.
Fonda, B., & Sarabon, N. (2010a). Biomechanics of cycling: Literature review. Sport Science Review, 19(1/2), 131-163.
Fonda, B., & Sarabon, N. (2010b). Inter-muscular coordination during uphill cycling in a seated position: A pilot study.
Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16(1), 12-17.
Gaesser, G.A., & Brooks, G.A. (1975). Muscular efficiency during steady-rate exercise: Effects of speed and work
rate. Journal of Applied Physiology, 38(6), 1132-1139.
Gámez, J., Zarzoso, M., Raventós, A., Valero, M., Alcántara, E., López, A., Prat, J., et al. (2008). Determination of the
optimal saddle height for leisure cycling (P188). The Engineering of Sport, 7, 255-260.

14
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Grappe, F., Candau, R., Barbier, B., Hoffman, M.D., Belli, A., & Rouillon, J.-D. (1999). Influence of tyre pressure
and vertical load on coefficient of rolling resistance and simulated cycling performance. Ergonomics, 42(10),
1361-1371.
Hansen, E.A., Jørgensen, L.V., Jensen, K., Fregly, B.J., & Sjøgaard, G. (2002). Crank inertial load affects freely chosen
pedal rate during cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 35(2), 277-285.
Hansen, E.A., & Waldeland, H. (2008). Seated versus standing position for maximization of performance during
intense uphill cycling. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(9), 977-984.
Harnish, C., King, D., & Swensen, T. (2007). Effect of cycling position on oxygen uptake and preferred cadence in trained
cyclists during hill climbing at various power outputs. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 99(4), 387-391.
Hoes, M.J., Binkhorst, R.A., Smeekes-Kuyl, A.E., & Vissers, A.C. (1968). Measurement of forces exerted on pedal
and crank during work on a bicycle ergometer at different loads. Internationale Zeitschrift Für Angewandte
Physiologie, Einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie, 26(1), 33-42.
Hof, A.L. (2002). EMG and muscle force: An introduction. Human Movement Science, 3(1-2), 119-153.
Hug, F., & Dorel, S. (2009). Electromyographic analysis of pedaling: A review. Journal of Electromyography and
Kinesiology, 19(2), 182-198.
Hug, F., Drouet, J.M., Champoux, Y., Couturier, A., & Dorel, S. (2008). Interindividual variability of electromyographic
patterns and pedal force profiles in trained cyclists. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 104(4), 667-678.
Jeukendrup, A.E., & Martin, J. (2001). Improving cycling performance: How should we spend our time and money?
Sports Medicine, 31(7), 559-569.
Kautz, S.A., Feltner, M.E., Coyle, E.F., & Baylor, A.M. (1991). The pedaling technique of elite endurance cyclists:
Changes with increasing workload at constant cadence. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 7(1), 29-53.
Kautz, S.A., & Hull, M.L. (1993). A theoretical basis for interpreting the force applied to the pedal in cycling. Journal
of Biomechanics, 26(2), 155-165.
Kohler, G., & Boutellier, U. (2005). The generalized force-velocity relationship explains why the preferred pedaling
rate of cyclists exceeds the most efficient one. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 94(1-2), 188-195.
Kyle, C.R. (1991). The effect of crosswind upon time trials. Cycling Science, 4, 51-56.
Leirdal, S., & Ettema, G. (2011). The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111(12), 2885-2893.
Li, L., & Caldwell, G.E. (1998). Muscle coordination in cycling: Effect of surface incline and posture. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 85(3), 927-934.
Lim, A.C., Homestead, E.P., Edwards, A.G., Carver, T.C., Kram, R., & Byrnes, W.C. (2011). Measuring changes in
aerodynamic/rolling resistances by cycle-mounted power meters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
43(5), 853-860.
Lunnen, J.D., Yack, J., & LeVeau, B.F. (1981). Relationship between muscle length, muscle activity, and torque of the
hamstring muscles. Physical Therapy, 61(2), 190-195.
MacIntosh, B.R., Neptune, R.R., & Horton, J.F. (2000). Cadence, power, and muscle activation in cycle ergometry.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(7), 1281-1287.
Marsden, M., & Schwellnus, M. (2010). Lower back pain in cyclists: A review of epidemiology, pathomechanics and
risk factors. International Sport Medicine Journal, 11(1), 216-225.
Marsh, A.P., Martin, P.E., & Sanderson, D.J. (2000). Is a joint moment-based cost function associated with preferred
cycling cadence? Journal of Biomechanics, 33(2), 173-180.
Millet, G.P., Tronche, C., Fuster, N., & Candau, R. (2002). Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and
standing positions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(10), 1645-1652.
Mognoni, P., & di Prampero, P.E. (2003). Gear, inertial work and road slopes as determinants of biomechanics in
cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 90(3-4), 372-376.
Moseley, L., & Jeukendrup, A.E. (2001). The reliability of cycling efficiency. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 33(4), 621-627.
Neptune, R.R., Kautz, S.A., & Hull, M.L. (1997). The effect of pedaling rate on coordination in cycling. Journal of
Biomechanics, 30(10), 1051-1058.
Olds, T., & Olive, S. (1999). Methodological considerations in the determination of projected frontal area in cyclists.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(4), 335-345.
Redfield, R., & Hull, M.L. (1986). On the relation between joint moments and pedalling rates at constant power in
bicycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 19(4), 317-329.
Reiser, R., Peterson, M., & Broker, J. (2003). Instrumented bicycle pedals for dynamic measurement of propulsive
cycling loads. Sports Engineering, 6(1), 41-48.
Ryschon, T.W., & Stray-Gundersen, J. (1991). The effect of body position on the energy cost of cycling. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 23(8), 949-953.
Salai, M., Brosh, T., Blankstein, A., Oran, A., & Chechik, A. (1999). Effect of changing the saddle angle on the incidence
of low back pain in recreational bicyclists. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33(6), 398-400.

15
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

Sanderson, D.J., & Amoroso, A.T. (2009). The influence of seat height on the mechanical function of the triceps surae
muscles during steady-rate cycling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(6), e465-471.
Sarabon, N., Fonda, B., & Markovic, G. (2011). Change of muscle activation patterns in uphill cycling of varying slope.
European Journal of Applied Physiology. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2236-1
Savelberg, H.H.C.M., Van de Port, I.G.L., & Willems, P.J.B. (2003). Body configuration in cycling affects muscle
recruitment and movement pattern. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 19(4), 310-324.
Shemmell, J., & Neal, R. (1998). The kinematics of uphill, out-of-the-saddle-cycling. North American Congress on
Biomechanics. Presented at the North American Congress on Biomechanics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada: Canadian Society for Biomechanics, American Society of Biomechanics.
Silberman, M.R., Webner, D., Collina, S., & Shiple, B.J. (2005). Road bicycle fit. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine:
Official Journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, 15(4), 271-276.
Suzuki, S., Watanabe, S., & Homma, S. (1982). EMG activity and kinematics of human cycling movements at different
constant velocities. Brain Research, 240(2), 245-258.
Swain, D.P., & Wilcox, J.P. (1992). Effect of cadence on the economy of uphill cycling. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 24(10), 1123-1127.
Too, D. (1990). Biomechanics of cycling and factors affecting performance. Sports Medicine, 10(5), 286-302.
van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & Cavanagh, P.R. (1990). Power equations in endurance sports. Journal of Biomechanics,
23(9), 865-881.
Welbergen, E., & Clijsen, L.P. (1990). The influence of body position on maximal performance in cycling. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61(1-2), 138-142.
Wozniak Timmer, C.A. (1991). Cycling biomechanics: A literature review. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports
Physical Therapy, 14(3), 106-113.

Submitted: March 18, 2012

Accepted: May 15, 2012

Correspondence to:
Nejc Šarabon, Ph.D.
University of Primorska, Science and Research Centre
Institute for Kinesiology Research
Garibaldijeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia
Phone: +386 40 429 505
E-mail: [email protected]

16
Fonda, B. and Šarabon, N.: BIOMECHANICS AND ENERGETICS OF UPHILL ... Kinesiology 44(2012) 1:5-17

BIOMEHANIKA I ENERGETIKA VOŽNJE

BICIKLA UZBRDO: PREGLED ISTRAŽIVANJA

Pobjednici najvećih biciklističkih 3-tjednih eta- uspjeli, potrebne su određene promjene u položa-
pnih utrka (npr. Giro d’Italia, Tour de France, Vuel- ju tijela. Glavni rezultat ovog preglednog rada jest
ta a Espana) su najčešće biciklisti koji dominiraju u zaključak da se mišićna aktivnost mijenja tijekom
segmentima utrke s usponima. Amaterski biciklisti, vožnje bicikla uzbrdo u sjedu usporedbi s vožnjom
pak, često izbjegavaju uzbrdice zbog neugodnosti po ravnom terenu, dok se s druge strane, sile na
koju vožnja uzbrdo izaziva. Zbog toga je nužno po- pedalama, dinamika zglobova i učinkovitost vožnje
znavati i razumjeti kretanje tijekom vožnje bicikla ne mijenjaju značajno. Suprotno tome, tijekom vo-
uzbrdo da bi se izabralo optimalno motoričko pona- žnje bicikla uzbrdo u stojećem položaju sve ranije
šanje koje se može primijeniti u praksi. Cilj je ovoga spomenute mjere su različite od onih zabilježenih u
rada ocijeniti kvalitetu istraživanja o biomehanici i vožnji bicikla uzbrdo u sjedu ili u vožnji po ravnom
energetskim zahtjevima bicikliranja uzbrdo. Ukupno terenu. Daljnja istraživanja trebala bi se usmjeriti
smo analizirali 40 članaka iz znanstvenih i stručnih na istraživanja provedena u vanjskim uvjetima i na
časopisa koji su istražili energetiku, sile pedaliranja strmijim usponima.
i sile u zglobovima, ekonomičnost i učinkovitost mi-
šićne aktivnosti te optimizaciju izvedbe i udobnosti
tijekom vožnje bicikla uzbrdo. Za vožnje po uzbrdici Ključne riječi: uspješnost, učinkovitost, bio-
biciklisti moraju svladati gravitaciju, a da bi u tome mehanika, fiziologija, optimizacija

17