Fig 1.
A recumbent handcyclist, in the experimental setup.
Four different crank fore-aft configurations were tested, which were standardised at 94%, 97%, 100% and 103% of participants arm length. Elbow flexion was defined as zero in full extension and increased positively when flexed. Shoulder protraction was defined as the angle of the scapula with regard to the y-axis of the local coordinate system of the thorax, where zero meant a parallel position of the two [21].
Fig 2.
Definition of the kinetic variables based on the in-plane torque around the instrumented crank data over all cycles from a single trial of a single participant.
C2 stands for Cyclus2 (Handcycle ergometer).
Table 1.
Arm length, manipulation range and mean elbow flexion (mean±SD) and shoulder protraction angles (mean±SD) at maximal extension for each participant in each configuration (at 30W & 60W).
Table 2.
Means and standard deviations of all analysed dependent variables and results of the two-way repeated measures Anova.
Fig 3.
Torque profiles per crank fore-aft position, averaged over all full cycles over the last minute and all participants in the 30W (left) and 60W (right) conditions.
C2 stands for Cyclus2 (Handcycle ergometer). Contrasts revealed that the minimal torque at the end of the push phase decreased, the maximal torque in the pull phase increased and the percentage of work done in pull phase increased when the crank-fore-aft position increased.