ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021
Integrated Physiological, Biomechanical, and Subjective Responses for the Selection of Assistive Level in Pedelec Cycling.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2021. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decade, pedelec has become one of the most popular transportation modes due to its effectiveness in reducing physical effort. The effects of using pedelec as an alternative mode of exercise were explored in previous studies. However, the effects of pedelec parameters were not quantified for the self-selected gear ratio, random riding speed, and varied road slopes, which restricted its application. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of gear ratio and assistive torque and to determine the optimum riding condition regarding physiological, biomechanical, and subjective responses of the rider. The riding tests consisted of simulated slope (1.0 vs. 2.5% grade), gear ratio (light vs. heavy), and assistive levels (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2), and the tests were conducted in a randomized order. A total of 19 non-athletes completed the riding tests to evaluate physiological [metabolic equivalent of task (MET), heart rate, and gross efficiency (GE)], biomechanical [muscle activity (expressed as reference voluntary contraction, RVC) and power output], and subjective responses [rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and sense of comfort (SC)]. The test conditions induced moderate to vigorous intensities (3.7-7.4 METs, 58.5-80.3% of maximal heart rate, 11.1-29.5% of RVC rectus femoris activity, and 9.4-14.2 RPEs). The effects of gear ratio and assistive level on the physiological responses were significant. Riding with the heavy gear ratio showed advantages in METs and GE. For the optimum assistive level selection, low GE and limited improvement in subjective responses suggested the impact of low-power output conditions. Overall, for the health pedelec commuters, riding with 0.75 W/kg power output with 50 rpm cadence is recommended to obtain the moderate intensity (4.7 METs) and the advantages in GE and subjective feelings. Moreover, the findings can be applied to exercise intensity control and save battery energy effectively in varying riding conditions.
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.