Technique changes in cyclists are not well described during exhaustive exercise. Therefore the aim of the present study was to analyze pedaling technique during an incremental cycling test to exhaustion. Eleven cyclists performed an incremental cycling test to exhaustion. Pedal force and joint kinematics were acquired during the last three stages of the test (75%, 90% and 100% of the maximal power output). Inverse dynamics was conducted to calculate the net joint moments at the hip, knee and ankle joints. Knee joint had an increased contribution to the total net joint moments with the increase of workload (5–8% increase, p < 0.01). Total average absolute joint moment and knee joint moment increased during the test (25% and 39%, for p < 0.01, respectively). Increases in plantar flexor moment (32%, p < 0.01), knee (54%, p < 0.01) and hip flexor moments (42%, p = 0.02) were found. Higher dorsiflexion (2%, for p = 0.03) and increased range of motion (19%, for p = 0.02) were observed for the ankle joint. The hip joint had an increased flexion angle (2%, for p < 0.01) and a reduced range of motion (3%, for p = 0.04) with the increase of workload. Differences in joint kinetics and kinematics indicate that pedaling technique was affected by the combined fatigue and workload effects.

The effects of saddle height on pedal forces and joint kinetics (e.g. mechanical work) are unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effects of saddle height on pedal forces, joint mechanical work and kinematics in 12 cyclists and 12 triathletes. Four sub‐maximal 2‐min cycling trials (3.4 W/kg and 90 rpm) were conducted using preferred, low and high saddle heights (±10° knee flexion at 6 o'clock crank position from the individual preferred height) and an advocated optimal saddle height (25° knee flexion at 6 o'clock crank position). Right pedal forces and lower limb kinematics were compared using effect sizes (ES). Increases in saddle height (5% of preferred height, ES=4.6) resulted in large increases in index of effectiveness (7%, ES=1.2) at the optimal compared to the preferred saddle height for cyclists. Greater knee (11–15%, ES=1.6) and smaller hip (6–8%, ES=1.7) angles were observed at the low (cyclists and triathletes) and preferred (triathletes only) saddle heights compared to high and optimal saddle heights. Smaller hip angle (5%, ES=1.0) and greater hip range of motion (9%, ES=1.0) were observed at the preferred saddle height for triathletes compared to cyclists. Changes in saddle height up to 5% of preferred saddle height for cyclists and 7% for triathletes affected hip and knee angles but not joint mechanical work. Cyclists and triathletes would opt for saddle heights <5 and <7%, respectively, within a range of their existing saddle height.

Although the link between sagittal plane motion and exercise intensity has been highlighted, no study assessed if different workloads lead to changes in three‐dimensional cycling kinematics. This study compared three‐dimensional joint and segment kinematics between competitive and recreational road cyclists across different workloads. Twenty‐four road male cyclists (12 competitive and 12 recreational) underwent an incremental workload test to determine aerobic peak power output. In a following session, cyclists performed four trials at sub‐maximal workloads (65, 75, 85 and 95% of their aerobic peak power output) at 90 rpm of pedalling cadence. Mean hip adduction, thigh rotation, shank rotation, pelvis inclination (latero‐lateral and anterior–posterior), spine inclination and rotation were computed at the power section of the crank cycle (12 o'clock to 6 o'clock crank positions) using three‐dimensional kinematics. Greater lateral spine inclination (p < .01, 5–16%, effect sizes = 0.09–0.25) and larger spine rotation (p < .01, 16–29%, effect sizes = 0.31–0.70) were observed for recreational cyclists than competitive cyclists across workload trials. No differences in segment and joint angles were observed from changes in workload with significant individual effects on spine inclination (p < .01). No workload effects were found in segment angles but differences, although small, existed when comparing competitive road to recreational cyclists. When conducting assessment of joint and segment motions, workload between 65 and 95% of individual cyclists’ peak power output could be used.

It is unclear if applying larger or more symmetrical pedal forces leads to better performance in cycling. The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between pedal force production and performance in a cycling time trial and to evaluate the relationship between asymmetries in pedal force production and performance. Fifteen competitive cyclists/triathletes performed a 20 km cycling time trial on a cycle trainer while bilateral forces applied to the pedals were recorded along with total time. Total forces applied to the pedals were computed and converted into dominant and non-dominant forces using a leg preference inventory. Pedal force asymmetries ranged from 43% (in favour of the dominant limb) to 34% (in favour of the non-dominant limb). The relationship between total pedal force (averaged from both pedals) and performance time was small (r=-.32, effect size=.66) as well as the association between the asymmetry indices and performance time (r=.01, effect size=.06). In conclusion, applying large forces on the pedals and balancing pedal force application between the dominant and non-dominant limbs did not lead to better performance in this cycling time trial.

The potential factors associated with overuse injuries and pain in cyclists that are supported by evidence remain unclear. Our study aimed at assessing, using a systematic search of the most updated evidence, the main factors related to overuse knee-related pain and/or injuries in cyclists. The search assessed any potential mechanism related to knee pain or injury that could be used in the clinical practice. Databases were searched (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO). Studies were included if they presented results from original studies. They had to include, preferably but not limited to, recreational and/or competitive cyclists with or without knee pain. Quality of articles was assessed. Eleven articles were deemed eligible for full text appraisal. Studies involved generally the assessment of biomechanical outcomes associated with knee pain in cyclists. Overall, studies showed that cyclists with knee pain present larger knee adduction and larger ankle dorsiflexion and differences in activation for hamstrings and quadriceps muscles. Unclear results were observed for knee moments and no differences were observed for knee flexion angle, tibiofemoral and patellofemoral forces. It is important to state that varied types of knee pain were mixed in most studies, with 2 focused on anterior-related pain. Cyclists with overuse-related pain or injuries on their knees presented an increased medial projection of their knees and an altered activation of the Vastus Medialis and Vastus Lateralis muscles. However, this limited evidence is based on retrospective studies comparing cyclists with and without pain, which limits the conclusion on how cyclists develop knee pain and what are the main options for treatment of knee pain.

Workload and experience in cycling have been suggested as factors influencing joint kinematics in cycling. The aims of our study were to (1) compare cyclists and non-cyclists lower limb kinematics and (2) to assess the effects of different workload l