ArticleJournal of sports sciences2014
Ground reaction forces and osteogenic index of the sport of cyclocross.
Article in Journal of sports sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress on Dance Training as a Mechanical Stimulus for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Effect of External Mechanical Stimuli on Human Bone: a narrative review.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Weight-bearing activity has been shown to increase bone mineral density. Our purpose was to measure vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) during cyclocross-specific activities and compute their osteogenic index (OI). Twenty-five healthy cyclocross athletes participated. GRF was measured using pressure-sensitive insoles during seated and standing cycling and four cyclocross-specific activities: barrier flat, barrier uphill, uphill run-up, downhill run-up. Peak and mean GRF values, according to bodyweight, were determined for each activity. OI was computed using peak GRF and number of loading cycles. GRF and OI were compared across activities using repeated-measures ANOVA. Number of loading cycles per activity was 6(1) for barrier flat, 8(1) barrier uphill, 7(1) uphill run-up, 12(3) downhill run-up. All activities had significantly (P < 0.01) higher peak GRF, mean GRF values and OI when compared to both seated and standing cycling. The barrier flat condition (P < 0.01) had highest peak (2.9 times bodyweight) and mean GRF values (2.3 times bodyweight). Downhill run-up (P < 0.01) had the highest OI (6.5). GRF generated during the barrier flat activity is similar in magnitude to reported GRFs during running and hopping. Because cyclocross involves weight bearing components, it may be more beneficial to bone health than seated road cycling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.