|
|
|
|
JOURNAL
OF
SPORTS SCIENCE &
MEDICINE
|
 |
|
Research
article
|
CYCLING EFFICIENCY IN TRAINED MALE AND FEMALE COMPETITIVE CYCLISTS |
|||||||||
James Hopker1  ,
Simon Jobson1, Helen Carter2 and Louis Passfield1 |
|||||||||
1Centre for Sports Studies, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent UK, 2Chelsea School, University of Brighton, Brighton, West Sussex, UK |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
© Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2010) 9, 332 - 337 |
|||||||||
|
|
| ABSTRACT | |||
| The aim of this study was to examine differences in cycling efficiency
between competitive male and female cyclists. Thirteen trained male (mean
± SD: 34 ± 8 yr, 74.1 ± 6.0 kg, Maximum Aerobic Power (MAP) 414 ± 40 W,
VO2max 61.3 ± 5.4 ml·kg-1·min-1) and 13
trained female (34 ± 9 yr, 60.1 ± 5.2 kg, MAP 293 ± 22 W, VO2max
48.9 ± 6.1 ml·kg-1·min-1) competitive cyclists completed
a cycling test to ascertain their gross efficiency (GE). Leg and lean leg
volume of all cyclists was also measured. Calculated GE was significantly
higher in female cyclists at 150W (22.5 ± 2.1 vs 19.9 ± 1. 8%; p < 0.01)
and 180W (22.3 ± 1.8 vs 20.4 ± 1.5%; p = 0.01). Cadence was not significantly
different between the groups (88 ± 6 vs 91 ± 5 rev·min-1). Lean
leg volume was significantly lower for female cyclists (4.04 ± 0.5 vs 5.51
± 0.8 dm3; p < 0.01) and was inversely related to GE in both
groups at 150 and 180W (r = -0.59 and -0.58; p < 0.05). Lean leg volume
was shown to account for the differences in GE between the males and females.
During an "unloaded" pedalling condition, male cyclists had a
significantly higher O2 cost than female cyclists (1.0 ± 0.1
vs 0.7 ± 0.1 L·min-1; p < 0.01), indicative of a greater non-propulsive
cost of cycling. These results suggest that differences in efficiency between
trained male and female cyclists can be partly accounted for by sex-specific
variation in lean leg volume.
Key words: Gross efficiency, endurance performance, sex-related differences, power output, leg volume. |
|