BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026
A biomechanical and physiological comparison of standard and mini-bike cycle ergometry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bini Rodrigo, Hunter Jayden, Collins Blake, Tucker Sam, Mally Monica, Kingsley Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The affordability and portability of mini-bikes have contributed to their growing popularity as individuals seek convenient ways to increase daily energy expenditure. However, there is limited research examining the biomechanics and physiological responses associated with cycling on these devices. This study examined the biomechanical and physiological demands of mini-bikes in comparison to conventional stationary cycling at comparable subjective exercise intensity.
METHODS: Fourteen adults cycled for 15-min on a mini-bike and on a cycle ergometer in a randomised order whilst [Formula: see text]O2, HR and RPE, movement (torso and lower limbs) and pedal forces were recorded. Power output (PO), external and internal work (hip, knee, ankle and lower limb) were compared between bikes and temporal comparisons were conducted for joint angles, joint and pedal power and pedal forces. Without differences in [Formula: see text]O2, HR or RPE between bikes, cycling mini-bikes elicited lower PO and work (external, internal, hip and knee joints) than with the cycle ergometer (p < 0.01 and effect size > 1.44). Temporal analysis highlighted a more limited range of motion for the hip and knee joints for the mini-bike.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a combination of reduced crank length and difference in posture makes the mini-bikes a convenient alternative to conventional stationary cycling, potentially reducing internal load and lower mechanical efficiency that may impact energy expenditure.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12624001195549p on the 30/09/2024 (number ACTRN12624001195549p).
METHODS: Fourteen adults cycled for 15-min on a mini-bike and on a cycle ergometer in a randomised order whilst [Formula: see text]O2, HR and RPE, movement (torso and lower limbs) and pedal forces were recorded. Power output (PO), external and internal work (hip, knee, ankle and lower limb) were compared between bikes and temporal comparisons were conducted for joint angles, joint and pedal power and pedal forces. Without differences in [Formula: see text]O2, HR or RPE between bikes, cycling mini-bikes elicited lower PO and work (external, internal, hip and knee joints) than with the cycle ergometer (p < 0.01 and effect size > 1.44). Temporal analysis highlighted a more limited range of motion for the hip and knee joints for the mini-bike.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a combination of reduced crank length and difference in posture makes the mini-bikes a convenient alternative to conventional stationary cycling, potentially reducing internal load and lower mechanical efficiency that may impact energy expenditure.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12624001195549p on the 30/09/2024 (number ACTRN12624001195549p).