ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2009
Effect of the rotor crank system on cycling performance.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physiological Responses during Cycling With Oval Chainrings (Q-Ring) and Circular Chainrings.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a novel crank system on laboratory time-trial cycling performance. The Rotor system makes each pedal independent from the other so that the cranks are no longer fixed at 180°. Twelve male competitive but non-elite cyclists (mean ± s: 35 ± 7 yr, Wmax = 363 ± 38 W, VO2peak = 4.5 ± 0.3 L·min(-1)) completed 6-weeks of their normal training using either a conventional (CON) or the novel Rotor (ROT) pedal system. All participants then completed two 40.23-km time-trials on an air-braked ergometer, one using CON and one using ROT. Mean performance speeds were not different between trials (CON = 41.7 km·h(-1) vs. ROT = 41.6 km·h(-1), P > 0.05). Indeed, the pedal system used during the time-trials had no impact on any of the measured variables (power output, cadence, heart rate, VO2, RER, gross efficiency). Furthermore, the ANOVA identified no significant interaction effect between main effects (Time-trial crank system*Training crank system, P > 0.05). To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of the Rotor system on endurance performance rather than endurance capacity. These results suggest that the Rotor system has no measurable impact on time-trial performance. However, further studies should examine the importance of the Rotor 'regulation point' and the suggestion that the Rotor system has acute ergogenic effects if used infrequently. Key pointsThe Rotor crank system does not improve gross efficiency in well-trained cyclists.The Rotor crank system has no measurable impact on laboratory 40.23-km time-trial performance.A 6-week period of familiarisation does not increase the effectiveness of the Rotor crank system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24150012PMC3763294What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.