ORIGINAL l NVESTIGATIONS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT BIOMECHANICS, 1988,4, 1-20

Optimization of pedaling Rate
in Cycling Usihg a Muscle
Stress-Based Objective Function
Maury L. Hull, Hiroko K. Gonzalez, and Rob Redfield
Relying on a five-bar linkage model of the lower limbhicycle system, inter-
segmental forces and moments are computed over a full crank cycle. Experi-
mental data enabling the solution of intersegmental loads consist of measured
crank arm and pedal angles together with the driving pedal force components.
Intersegmental loads are computed as a function of pedaling rate while hold-
ing the average power over a crank cycle constant. Using an algorithm that
avoids redundant equations, stresses are computed in 12 lower limb muscles.
Stress computations serve to evaluate a muscle stress-based objective func-
tion. The pedaling rate that minimizes the objective function is found to be
in the range of 95-100 rpm. In solving for optimal pedaling rate, the muscle
stresses are examined over a complete crank cycle. This examination pro-
vides insight into the functional roles of individual muscles in cycling.
In the field of sport biomechanics, one subject of primary interest is maxi-
mizing the performance of competitors. With regard to cycling, one factor known
to affect performance is the pedaling rate or cadence. Consequently, in the in-
terest of maximizing performance, it is useful to conduct analytical andlor experi-
mental studies that seek to understand the relation between pedaling rate and cyclist
performance. Other researchers have recognized the utility of such studies, which
have resulted in the development of a body of research. To our knowledge, all
previous studies have been experiments of human performance (e.g., see Coast
& Welch, 1985). The typical protocol is to have subjects pedal at different rates
while an ergometer is adjusted to provide constant average power. Oxygen up-
take is measured, and the optimal pedaling rate is that rate for which uptake is
a minimum.
Although there are some contradictory data, the majority of studies show that
at a power level of 200 W, which is typical of steady-state cycling over level
M.L. Hull and H.K. Gonzalez are withithe Department of Mechanical Engineering
at the University of California, Davis, CA 95616. Rob Redfield is with the Department
of Mechanical Engineeting at Texas A&M University.
2 HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
ground at about 9 m/s (20 mph), the optimal pedaling rate is about 65 rpm. This
rate is considerably below the range of rates (80-100 rpm) typical of cyslists.
Accordingly, the energetic cost of pedaling may not be the primary guide by which
the human engine selects the pedaling rate. Note that this statement is intended
to apply only to the power level cited above. For significantly lower or higher
power levels, the human engine may follow a different guide in which energetic
cost is weighed more heavily. A case in point is the study of Hagberg, Mullin,
Giese, and Spitznagel(1981), who found that the pedaling rates naturally select-
ed by cyclists at work loads exceeding the anaerobic threshold corresponded to
those that were optimal energetically.
Taking an approach that differed from the human performance studies,
Redfield and Hull (1986a) examined the relation between pedaling rate and cy-
cling performance strictly from an analytical biomechanical viewpoint. They as-
sumed that in the sport of bicycling, the degree of contraction (i.e., level of force)
of lower limb muscles bears an inverse relation to cyclist performance. Further,
Redfield and Hull assumed that the degree of muscle contraction relates directly
to the moments developed about the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Based on these
assumptions, they defmed an objective function as the summation of the absolute
average hip and knee moments, and went on to solve for the optimal pedaling
rate that minimized the objective function. Working toward this solution, Red-
field and Hull (1986a) also studied the sensitivity of the objective function to the
pedaling rate. Results indicated that this sensitivity was significant, signifying
the importance of pedaling rate selection. For the rider anthropometry and power
output level of their analysis, Redfield and Hull concluded that the optimal pedaling
falls within the range of 95 to 100 rpm.
Inasmuch as Redfield and Hull (1986a) had based their initial optimal pedal-
ing rate analysis on an objective function that was formulated from intuition and
lacked any verification, they extended their work to provide this verification. In
a subsequent article, Redfield and Hull (1986b) suggested that a criterion for judg-
ing the efficacy of an objective function was to compare the pedal force profiles,
which minimized the objective function, to measured pedal force profiles, and
the minimized joint moments to the "measured" joint moments. The idea be-
hind this comparison was that the measured pedal force and joint moment pro-
files were a natural result of the biomechanical objective function inherent in
generating human power. The comparison showed good agreement between mea-
sured and computed pedal forces, especially in the downstroke region (0"-180")
where maximum crank torque is generated. The comparison was less favorable
in the upstroke region (180"-360), however, and the measured hip moment pro-
file was not reproduced well by the computed hip moment.
In an attempt to develop an objective function, which would yield opthized
pedal forces and joint moments comparing more favorably in both pedal stroke
regions, Redfield and Hull consulted the work of Crowninshield and Brand (1981),
who presented a muscle stress-based objective function. This function is physio-
logically based in that it was derived from muscular endurance experiments.
Crowninshield and Brand cited the work of Grosse-Lordemann and Muller (1937),
who were the first to posit a relation between muscle force and endurance (i.e.,
time that force can be developed). The relation indicated that the time was in-
versely related to contraction force raised to a power greater than 1 .O. Earlier
Fick (1910) suggested that the maximum force a muscle could develop was directly
PEDALING RATE IN CYCLING 3
related to its cross-sectional area, while later Dons, Bollerup, Bonde-Peterson,
and Hancke (1979) showed that the muscle force-endurance relation could be nor-
malized to the maximum muscle force. Based on these research results consid-
ered together, Crowninshield and Brand (1981) suggested that endurance is related
to muscle stress. To formalize this suggestion, they defined an objective function
which was the sum of individual muscle stresses raised to the power of the
endurance-force relation. Crowninshield and Brand (1981) went on to test the
objective function on a repetitive movement (gait) and found good agreement be-
tween the temporal properties of measured EMG and computed muscle force.
Following the lead of Crowninshield and Brand (198 l), Redfield and Hull
(1986b) formulated a second objective function based on muscle stress rather than
on muscle force. In comparing the computed pedal forces and joint moments to
those measured, it was found that the muscle stress-based objective function yielded
better agreement for both pedal forces in the upstroke region and the hip moment
profile than the joint moment-based objective function. Assuming that the com-
parison of computed versus measured forces and moments is a viable means of
assessing objective function propriety, the muscle stress-based objective func-
tion can be considered to better model the power-generating strategy of the hu-
man engine in cycling than the joint moment-based objective function.
Recognizing the superiority of the muscle stress-based objective function, the
objective of the study described in this article is to determine the pedaling rate
that minimizes this objective function under the constant power restraint. In order
to compare the result with that obtained using the joint moment-based objective
function, the rider anthropometry, bicycle dimensions, and power output level
will be the same as that used by Redfield and Hull (1986a). Subsequent sections
both describe the methods employed in the analysis and present the results.
Methods
Although the methodology for computing the muscle stress-based objective func-
tion is the same as that detailed in Redfield and Hull (1986b), in the interests
of clarifying the salient features of the methodology, it is worth presenting a sum-
mary here. To enable the quantification of intersegmental moments and forces,
and therefore computation of muscle forces and ultimately stresses, a bio-
mechanical model was necessary. Inasmuch as the leg motion in cycling is re-
stricted primarily to a plane, the leg-bicycle system was modeled as a planar
five-bar linkage fixed at both the hip joint and crank axis, as illustrated in Figure
1. Determining the intersegmental moments and forces shown in Figure 2 re-
quired solving the inverse dynamics problem. In such a problem both the exter-
nal loads and the kinematics must be determined experimentally so that the internal
forces and moments responsible for producing the loads and motion can be com-
puted in an inverse fashion.
The input data necessary to solve the inverse dynamics problem were
derived from the experiments of Hull and Jorge (1985). As illustrated in Figure
2, the external loads acting on the lower limb model are the tangential (PF,) and
normal (PF,,) pedal force components. Both components were measured using
a special pedal dynamometer. For a five-bar linkage, two kinematic variables
are necessary to uniquely specify the linkage motion. The two kinematic inputs
were the crank and pedal angles measured simultaneously with the pedal force
4 HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFlEtD
compotrents . .In OYB&YO Og~&re +W liilik W if.elati&s eatld~~~bleraTioff kt;
these angle* verms timei.plots mu& M differentiaEd twice. 'At steady-state cyk
cling, the first deriirativk of tfie crank mgle is a constant. Inspection of the pediil
angle revealed that it is approximately sinusoidal. Accordingly, derivatives were
obtained analytically. Y
Additional input*@i% inclnd'eif values of:the St"li,tleP~thropomdtric ptriala&
mefeb. Mass, moment of iaertia, and center+of Davity location values for the
leg segments were estimated usingiZhe Work df M s and Continir(1966). Actu-
al subject body mass and lower limb segment lengths were used from the study
of Hull and Jorge (1985) as input to Drillis' empirical formulas to obtain model
parameters. Hull and Jorgeused six subjer3s in their study, and data frdm one
of those subjects who provided average anthropometryas well as fjlpical and coni
sistent cycling dynamics were used herein. Table 1 lists the data for this subject.
To determine the iatersegmental forces and moments illustrated in Figure 2,
the equations of motion derived by Redfield and Hull (1986a) were used. With
all input data available, the equations of motion were solved to yield the inter-
segmental forces and moments of all three joints over a complete crank cycle
at 5" intervals. In order to compute muscle forces, the procedure for computing
contributions of muscles to the interlsegmental moments devised by Redfield and
Hull (1986b) was~followed. Muscles of the leg were lumped into functional groups
(e.g., knee extensor). The muscles used in this study, their groupings, and their
abbreviations are given in Table 2, Then the contribution of muscle groups t o
the total joint moment was-determined by assuming a lack of cocontraction in
agonisttantagonist muscles as necessary to avoid the redundant and hence indeter-
minate problem (Crowninshield & Brand, 1981).
To illustrate, the ankle was considered first. Depending on moment direc-
tion, the ankle moment was attributed to either the tibialis anterior or gastroc-
nemius. Next the knee moment was considered. Because it is a two-joint muscle,
Segment
6 HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
the gastrocnemius, if active, produces a moment about the knee as well as the
ankle. Therefore the gastrocnemius' contribution to the knee moment, if any,
was subtracted from the net knee moment to create a remainder moment about
the knee. Positive (extensive) remainder knee moment was attributed to the quad-
riceps muscle group, while negative (flexive) remainder moment was attributed
to the hamstrings group. Similarly, because muscles of both the hamstrings group
and the rectus femoris are two-joint muscles, the remainder torque at the hip was
found by summing either the hamstrings or the rectus femoris moment contribu-
tion with the net hip moment. Finally, the remainder hip torque was ascribed
to either the gluteus maximus or the illio-psoas. Table 3 summarizes the
agonistlantagonist muscle groups for which cocontraction is both permitted and
not permitted by this procedure.
Implementing the procedure for muscle force computations required that
muscle moment arm lengths be specified. For the purposes of determining mo-
Table 2
Model Leg Muscles
Ankle dorsi-flexor
Ankle plantar-flexor
Knee flexors
Hip flexors
Hip extensors
- tibialis anterior (TA)
- gastrocnemius (G) (medial and lateral head)
- gastrocnemius (G) (medial and lateral head)
- semimembranosus (SM)
- semitendinosus (ST)
- biceps femoris (BF) (long head)
- rectus femoris (RF)
- psoas (P)
- illiacus (I)
- gluteus maximus (GM)
- semirnembranosus (SB)
- semitendinosus (ST)
- biceps femoris (BF) (long head)
Note. After Redfield & Hull (1986b).
Table 3
Cocontraction of Lower Limb AgonistIAntagonist Muscles
Permitted
Not permitted
Gastrocnemiuslquadriceps at the knee
Rectus femorislgluteus maximus at the hip
Illio-psoaslharnstrings at the hip
Gastrocnemiusltibialis anterior at the ankle
Quadricepslhamstrings at the knee
Rectus femorislhamstrings at the hip
Gluteus maximus/illio-psoas at the hip
PEDALING RATE IN CYCLING 7
ment arm lengths, the muscles of the lower extremity may be divided into two
types. The frrst type is distinguished by two characteristics, a straight line of ac-
tion between origin and insertion and a variable-length moment arm. The muscles
in the top three rows of Table 4 are of the first type. The procedure for establish-
ing the moment ann length for the first type entailed locating the centroid of muscle
attachment points on an average skeletal specimen. Locations were specified by
means of a position vector directed from the joint center to the muscle attach-
ment point centroid, assuming vertical upright skeletal segments. Vector radius
and clockwise angular position from vertical are the parameters indicated in Table
4. Moment arm lengths were then determined as the perpendicular distance be-
tween the muscle line of action and the estimated joint center.
The second type of muscles is distinguished either by lines of action be-
tween attachment points that are not collinear or by moment arm lengths that
do not vary significantly. Rows 4-9 in Table 4 are muscles of the second type.
The procedure for determining moment arm lengths differed from that of the first
type. Moment arm lengths both at 0" (full extension) and 90" were recorded from
the skeleton. Table 4 lists these lengths. A linear interpolation scheme was used
to determine moment arm lengths for angles in the 0-90" range.
To facilitate the computation of stresses, it was assumed that individual
muscles produced force according to their cross-sectional area. Muscle cross-
sectional data were measured directly from the work of Carter et al. (1977). The
cross-sections were traced on a grid and the areas were calculated. Three or more
cross-sections were averaged from each muscle to account for the changing cross-
sectional area along the muscle's length. Muscle group data were then normal-
ized to the largest muscle group area, the three vastii in the quadriceps. Normal-
ized muscle area data are also listed in Table 4. The rationale behind normalizing
is that the optimization distributes forces to the muscles depending on their rela-
Table 4
Muscle Data
- -
Muscle
-
X-section Origin Insertion
ST, SM
BF
RF
7.0 cm 1 4.9 rad
7.0 cm 1 4.9 rad
4.2 cm 1 0.7 rad
Moment arm 0"
3.4 cm 1 4.0 rad
6.0 cm 13.1 rad
4.5 cm 1 1.6 rad
Moment arm 90"
P, 1 (hip) 0.555
VM, VI, VL (knee) 1 .OOO
GM (hip) 0.873
TA (ankle) 0.127
G (ankle) 0.402
G (knee) 0.402
Note. After Redfield & Hull (1986b).
8 HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
tive, not absolute, ability to effectively produce a given force. Because normal-
ized areas were used in determining individual muscle stresses, stress computations
yielded dimensionless results. This explains Why the stress-based plots in Figures
4, 5, 7, and 8 have no units on the vertical axis.
Once the muscle group stresses were computed over the full crank cycle, the
muscle stress-based objective function OF was defined by
,
muscle
could be evaluated. In the objective function equation, N is the number of data
points/cycle (N=72 for 5" intervals).
Because it was of interest to compute the objective function above as pedaling
rate was varied, a systematic method was needed to vary pedal forces with aver-
age power over a cycle held constant. The method entailed first deriving a rela-
tion between average power, pedaling rate, and the measured pedal force com-
ponents. Average power was computed according to
where T is the time to complete one crank revolution, F, is t$e pedal force com-
ponent normal to the crank, LC is the crank arm length, and 9 the crank arm an-
gular velocity. The pedal force normal to the crank F, was computed from both
the measured pedal forces (PF, and PF, in Figure 3) and the measured relative
pedal angle (a! in Figure 1) according to
In Equation 3, K is a scaling factor that is defined by
where is the reference crank angular velocity corresponding to a pedaling
rate of 80 rpm. Thus by scaling measured pedal forces inversely with pedaling
rate, constant average power was maintained. The power level used in the analy-
sis was 98.3 W for a single leg or approximately 0.27 HP total for both legs.
The foregoing procedure assumes that during actual cycling at constant
power with different pedaling rates, pedal forces obey the simple scaling law de-
fined by Equations 3 and 4. This assumption was checked by comparing scaled
pedal forces to the pedal force data of Bolourchi and Hull (1985). These authors
recorded pedal force data from three subjects who pedaled at constant power over
a range of pedaling rates. Comparison of scaled pedal forces to measured pedal
forces showed good agreement, especially for the normal pedal force PF,.
--- PFn
EEl
Figure 3 - Normal and tangential pedal forces versus crank anm angle (0vertical).
Results and Discussion
The data that result from analysis of muscle stresses have a number of uses. As-
suming that the muscle stress computing algorithm gives an accurate picture of
.
muscle stress, one use is to provide an understanding of muscle function in cy-
cling. The function of muscles as indicated by the algorithm will be discussed
first, followed by an assessment of the efficacy of the algorithm. Figures 4a, 4b,
and 4c illustrate the muscle stresses for the tibialis anteriorlgastrocnemius, quad-
ricepslhamstrings, and illio-psoas/gluteus maximus, respectively, computed at
a pedaling rate of 80 rpm. In Figure 4a, which plots the stress in two major muscles
crossing the ankle joint, notice the long range of activity for the gastrocnemius.
Because this range extends essentially over the full crank cycle, and the muscle
force computing algorithm does not allow for cocontraction of the tibialis anteri-
or, the stress in the tibialis is bound to zero. Also notice that the gastroc stress
closely tracks the normal pedal force (see Figure 3). Accordingly, the activity
of the gastroc muscle produces a moment at the ankle which acts to equilibrate
that due to the normal pedal force.
Unlike the picture at the ankle joint, Figure 4b shows that both the quadri-
ceps (knee extensors) and hamstrings (knee flexors) experience stress over different
regions of the crank cycle. Muscles included in the quadriceps group are rectus
HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
-2.5000! I , , ,
8 . a ~ 68.08 1b.00 183.0e1 241/.~0' ad. 00' ~ 1 / . 0 a
CRAWK WGLE (DEG)
b)
- 2 . 5 m m
9.08 69-09 129.88 18s.BD 24O.BO Js8-DO 368.Oa
CRMK WGLE (DEG
Figure 4 - Muscle stmses at 80 rpm pedaling rate. (a) Tibialis anterior (TASTR)
and gastrocnemius (GASSTR); (b) Hamstrings group (HAMSTR) and quadriceps
group (QUDSTR). (cont.)
PEDALING RATE IN CYCLING 11
Figure 4c - Gluteus maximus (GLTSTR) and illio-psoas (PSOSTR).
fernoris and the three vastii, while those in the hamstrings group are biceps femoris,
semimembranosus, and semitendinosus. Stresses of the two groups are neces-
sarily confined to different regions because the muscle force algorithm does not
allow cocontraction of these groups at the knee. Note that the algorithm does
provide for cocontraction of the gastroc at the knee, however. Because the gastroc
is a two-joint muscle, it acts not only as an extensor of the ankle but also as a
flexor of the knee. Accordingly, this muscle is antagonistic to the knee extensors.
Superposition of Figures 4a and 4b indicates stress in these muscles simultaneously.
An interesting observation in Figure 4b surrounds the timing of the stresses
in the two groups. The maximum stress in the quadriceps group occurs at a crank
angle of about 15" while that in the hamstrings group occurs at 200". Note that
neither group experiences significant stress at about 110". According to Figure
3, this is the instant of greatest absolute normal pedal force and hence peak instan-
taneous power. The interest in this observation is that neither muscle group ap-
pears to play a significant role in developing this power.
The muscle primarily responsible for developing peak power is evident
from Figure 4c. The stress data in Figure 4c indicate that the gluteus maximus
stress ranges over virtually the entire downstroke while the stress of the illio-
psoas group ranges over the opposite region, the upstroke. Because the peak
gluteus maximus stress coincides with the peak instantaneous power, it can be
concluded that this muscle plays a dominant role in developing peak power. Note
that because of the massive size of this muscle, the stress is relatively low. Ac-
cordingly, the gluteus maximus muscle appears well suited for the demand placed
upon it in cycling. The fact that the illio-psoas is active only during the upstroke,
12 HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
where the net torque is usually negative, indicates that its activity is dedicated
to lifting the leg.
To assess the efficacy of the muscle force-computing al
to compare the regions over which muscle groups exhibit significant stress to
previously published EMGdata. In order to fairly compare stress to EMG data,
the data must be processed and presented as integrated EMG (IEMG) levels ver-
sus crank angle. Previously published studies that present IEMG data in this form
include those of Gregor, Green, and Garhamrner (1982), Gregor, Cavanagh, and
LaFortune (1985), Ericson, Nisell, Arborelius, and Ekholm (1985), and Jorge
and Hull (1986).
Considering first the gastrocnemiusltibialis anterior, the stress regions
plotted in Figure 4a are consistent with the IEMG results of Gregor et al. (1982),
Ericson et al. (1985), and Jorge and Hull (1986). Note that the study by Gregor
et al. (1985) did not examine act'lvity in these two muscles. All three studies show
peak gastroc activity at about 120, coinciding well with the peak gastroc stress
in Figure 4a. Further, all studies show that the level of gastroc activity follows
the general pattern in Figure 4, with the activity level approaching zero near 300".
Although the EMG studies are consistent in indicating tibialis activity in the range
of 300-3m0, it is noted that this activity region does not overlap that of the gas-
trocnemius in any of the studies. ~onseqhentl~, the EMG studies support the as-
sumption that the gastroc and tibialis do not cocontract at the ankle. The failure
of the algorithm to indicate any stress in the tibialis is traced to the shape of the
pedal force profiles in Figure 3. Using the same algorithm with different pedal
force profiles, Redfield and Hull (1986b) computed stress in the tibialis anterior
in the same region indicated by the EMG studies.
Considering next the muscles crossing the knee, the two EMG studies by
Ericson et al. (1985) and Jorge and Hull (1986) present results that support the
assumed lack of cocontraction of quadriceps and hamstrings, whereas the other
two by Gregor et al. (1982,1985) partially support this assumption. All four studies
indicate that peak levels of rectus femoris activity occur before peak levels of
vastii activity. In combining all four quadriceps muscles into a single group, the
algorithm used herein does not delineate this difference. Nevertheless, the stress
region for the quadriceps group illustrated in Figure 4b coincides with the EMG
activity regions of both the rectus femoris and vastii taken together. All EMG
studies are also consistent in showing that activity in the medial hamstrings oc-
curs well after that in the quadriceps. The region of EMG activity for the medial
hamstrings agrees with the region of stress in Figure 4b. Thus all EMG studies
support the assumed lack of cocontraction on the part of the quadriceps and medial
hamstrings.
The primary disparity in the results of the EMG studies becomes evident
when the activity regions of the lateral hamstrings (i.e., biceps femoris) are com-
pared. Both studies by Gregor et al. (1982, 1985) show that the region of biceps
femoris activity is the same as the region of vastii activity. Contrasted to this
result are the findings of Ericson et al. (1985),and Jorge and Hull (1986); Eric-
son et al. show a peak activity level at about 160" while Jorge and Hull show
a peak activity level somewhat earlier at 130". Although the findings of the EMG
studies differ concerning the activity region of the biceps femoris, even in the
case of Ericson et al. (1985) iwhich shows activity the latest, the biceps femoris
region significantly overlaps that of the vastii. Thus the algorithm is limited in
its ability to accurately depict the activity of all muscles in the hamstrings group.
PEmLINC RATE IN GYCL 13
As a final point, note that the muscle-force algorithm d e s not permit
cocontraction of glnteus and illio-psoas. Recognizing that EMG data on these
muscles are scadce, it is difficult to comment as to whether this is a limitation.
The algorithm does, however, permit cocontraction of both the biceps femoris
and rectus femoris with the illio-psoas and gluteus maximus, respectively. This
is evident from a superposition of Figures 4b and 4c. The experimental EMG
data of Gregor et al. (1982), Ericson et al. (1985), and Jorge and Hull (1986)
indicate the need for cocontraction of rectus femoris and gluteus maximus.
A second utility of the data is to provide insight into how muscle stress
is related to pedaling rate, and hence appreciation for the optimization of pedal-
ing rate. The average*muscle group stresses versus cadence are shown in Figures
5a, 5b, and 5c. In order to interpret the results presented in these figures, it is
first useful to review the analysis of cycling biomechanics reported by both Hull
and Jorge (1985) and Redfield and Hull (1986a). In analyzing the total moment
at a particular joint, Hull and Jorge (1985) partitioned this total into two terms
ment due only to pedal forces (i.e., acceleration terms and link masses set equal
to 0).
Redfield and Hull (1986a) examined the respective contributions of both
kinematic and static terms to the total moment as pedaling rate\was varied at con-
stant power. Theseiauthots showed that the static m~ment~decreases hyperboli-
cally as the pdalihg rate increasps, while the kinematic ,moment increases
quadratically with increasing pedaling rate (see Figure 6). Th6 quadratic increase
in the kinematic moment is easily understood by noting that link accelerations
are functions of the square of link angular velocities that are'directly related to
pedaling rate. To understand the hyperbolic decrease in the static moment, note
that Equation 2 may be rewritten as
al to.&e c &m? Rearranging
a*?! @$ k4
i."pL *. ('7)
I
i
Thus for, > ~ ~ S r ~ ~ ~ c r e a s e s hyper-
bolically moment contribution is
dictated solely by pedaling rate, the static moment follows the same relation. It
that, depending on the relative contributions of the static
ons to the total moment, a minimum total moment may
pedaling fate when the contributions are superimposed.
oncern in thisarticle is with muscle stress rather than joint
preceding paragraph apply to muscle stresses as well8
This is because the muscle stress-computing algorithm outlined herein assumes
HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
EM1
64.0980-
51 .SO08
29.OWB
b)
24.0000 I I I I 1 I I 1
60.00 80.00 100.00 i20.00 140.00
RPW
EM2
Figure 5 - Average muscle stress versus pedaling rate. (a) Tibialis anterior (TASTR)
and gastrocnemius (GASSTR); (b) Hamstrings group (HAMSTR) and quadriceps
group (QUDSTR) . (cont .)
13.5989-
11.625L5e
1.750,
5
[ 7.0750-
6.000&
4.125,
2.250,
8.375,.
a) -1 -5000
68
1.
3.
1
-%
\---
---. ---
----.
%--- ,.
-%-
'*--
-'---..
I I I I I I I I
.OO W.00 lW.011 120.00 148.98
RPW
PEDALING RATE IN CYCLING
Figure 5c - Gluteus maximus (GLTSTR) and illia-psow VSOSTR).
RPM
F%gure 6 - Kinematic and static moment trends as pedal@ rate is varied (after Red-
field & Hull, 1986a).
16 HULL, GONaLEZ, AND REDFIELD
that the muscle forces and hence stresses are determined uniquely by joint mo-
ments. Consequently, the total muscle stresses can be partitioned according to
Equation 5, and the two stress terms (static and kinematic) will be related to the
pedaling rate similarly to the two moment terms.
Based on the preceding discussion, the results in Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c
may now be explained. First, consider the gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior
stresses in Figure 5a. It is observed that the gastrocnemius stress is maximum
at the lowest pedaling rate and decreases nonlinearly as pedaling rate is increased.
Thus the gastrocnemius stress does not exhibit a minimum. Due to both the small
moment of inertia of the foot and the experimentally observed result that the ab-
solute pedal angle (0 in Figure 1) does not vary significantly, the total ankle mo-
ment is dominated by the static moment term. Since the gastrocnemius stress is
a result of the moment developed about the ankle joint by the pedal force, and
this force decreases as pedaling rate increases at constant power, this nonlinear
inverse relation illustrated in Figure 5a is expected. The tibialis stress is bound
to 0 throughout the pedaling rate range. It was noted earlier that the shape of
the pedal force profiles in Figure 3 gave rise to a zero stress result at 80 rpm
(see Figure 4a). Recalling that the constant power constraint is maintained by
scaling these profiles, their shape remains constant, thus bounding the tibialis
stress to 0 for all pedaling rates.
The average stress versus cadence data for both the hamstrings and quadri-
ceps groups in Figure 5b show why the optimization analysis is warranted. Both
muscle groups indicate clear minima in the average stress plots. The minima of
both groups occur approximately at the same pedaling rate. For the parameters
chosen in the analysis herein, the minimum hamstrings and quadriceps stresses
occur at pedaling rates of 110 rpm and 115 rpm, respectively. The relationship
between the stress plots in Figure 5b and the total joint moment for the knee (and
hip) is complicated by the fact that the contribution of the gastroc to the knee
moment is removed before computing the hamstrings and quadriceps stresses.
Thus no attempt will be made to interpret stress results of Figure 5b in terms
of the total joint moment. It is evident from Figure 4b, however, that the re-
mainder joint moment is extensive in the region from 280" to about 140" and
flexive over the rest of the crank cycle. In exhibiting clear minima, Figure 5b
illustrates that the remainder moment in both extensive and flexive regions is
strongly influenced by both kinematic and static contributions according to Figure
6. For pedaling rates less than that at which the stress is minimum, the static
contribution to the remainder moment (stress) dominates, whereas above the mini-
mum the kinematic contribution dominates. Unlike the situation at the ankle where
the kinematic contribution does not become important, the kinematic contribu-
tion to the total stress in the quadriceps and hamstrings becomes significant be-
cause of the influence of the relatively large moment of inertia of the foot-shank.
Similar to the quadriceps and hamstrings data in Figure 5b, the average
stress versus cadence plots for both the gluteus and illio-psoas exhibit clear mini-
ma, as seen in Figure 5c. However, the minima occur at lower pedaling rates
than those in Figure 5b; gluteus exhibits a minimum at 90 rpm while the mini-
mum for illio-psoas is still lower at 75 rpm. It is interesting that illio-psoas aver-
age stress increases with increasing pedaling rate, while that of the gluteus remains
relatively constant. The relative constancy of the average gluteus stress suggests
that the sum total of the static and kinematic contributions to the gluteus stress
PEDALING RATE IN CYCLING, 2 17
in the downstroke region remains about equal. Inasmuch as the pedal forces are
small in the upstroke region, and the illio-psoas stress exists,only in that region
(see Figure 4c), the apparent quadratic increase in the illio-psoas average stress
with pedaling rate indicates that the stress in this muscle group i~~dominated by
the kinematic contribution. This is with the earlier interpretation of
the function of those muscles.
To gain a clear picture of the e muscle stresses, refer to Fi$ure 7.
Note that the joint stresses for the ankle, knee, and hip include str6sses from all
muscles crossing a particular joint. According to this procedure, the stress from
all two-joint muscles will be considered twice. From Figure 7 it is apparent that
the sum totals of stresses in muscles crossing the hip and knee joints are similar,
while the sum totals of stresses in muscles crossing the ankle joint are anywhere
from 2 to 10 times lower depending on the pedaling rate. This result emphasizes
the importance of including the stress from muscles crossing the hip and knee
joints in the objective function, but suggests that the stresses in muscles crossing
the ankle joint are of lesser importance.
The final result of this study, namely the detembtiion" of the,aptim_al pedal-
ing rate using the muscle stress-based objective function given in Equation 1,
is apparent from Figure 8. This optimal rate fa1ls.h the range of 95 to 100 rpm
HULL, GONZALEZ, AND REDFIELD
RPH
Figure 8 - Muscle stress cost function versus pedaling rate.
Among the cycling variables that might influence the value of the optimal
pedaling rate, one that readily comes to mind is the power output level. Although
the effect on the optimal rate of changing power level has not been studied here,
some insight into what effect might result can be gained by referring to Redfield
and Hull (1986a). These authors studied the dependence of the optimal pedaling
rate on power level and found that the rate increased with increasing power. This
result was explained by noting that, at higher power levels, the static contribu-
tion illustrated in Figure 6 would shift upward relative to the kinematic contribu-
tion, thus moving the trough of the superimposed contributions to higher rpm
values. Since the trends shown in Figure 6 for the moment contributions hold
for the stress contributions as well, the optima rpm for the stress-based objec-
tive function would be expected to shift similarly to the moment-based objective
function.
Concluding Remarks
In considering extending the optimization analysis of cycling biomechanics to in-
clude additional variables (e.g., seat height), it is desirable to rely on an objec-
tive function that offers ease of computation without compromising the accuracy
of results. Although Redfield and Hull (1986b) showed that the muscle stress-
based objective function better predicted measured pedal forces and intersegmental
moments than the joint moment-based objective function, the close comparison
of the results herein to those of Redfield and Hull (1986a) suggests that the
moment-based function may be used in lieu of the stress-based function. The joint
moment-based objective function is attractive because of its computational sim-
plicity,
PEDALING RATE I N CYCLING 19
Another remark concerns alternatives to the objective functions presented
by Redfield and Hull (1986b). Alternatives merit attention because considera-
tions other than muscle force or muscle stress may be important in optimization
analyses of cycling performance. As discussed, the muscle stress-based objec-
tive function has a physiological foundation in that it is derived from the muscle
force-time relation. When the whole picture of muscle mechanics is considered,
however, it includes not only the force-time relation but also the well lolown force-
velocity and force-length relations. Based on these relations, it is possible to de-
fine alternative objective functions. One possibility is to define an objective func-
tion based on mechanical impedance. Contrasted to the muscle stress-based
objective function wherein the optimization involves objective function minimi-
zation, optimization of the mechanical impedance-based objective function would
require maximization. Another possibility is to use the muscle stress-based ob-
jective function as defined herein, but to minimize this function subject to ine-
quality constraints which reflect the force-velocity and force-length relations.
Although it is possible to define alternative objective functions that reflect
force-velocity and force-length relations, evaluating these objective functions
presents some difficulty. Inasmuch as cycling at the power level of interest here-
in ( - 200 W) does not demand maximal contraction on the part of any leg muscles,
evaluation requires that these relations are known for partially activated muscles.
As noted by Zahalak et al. (1976), while the functional form of the force-velocity
relation appears to hold for partially activated muscle, the constants in the rela-
tion are different depending on the relative activation state. Since the EMG studies
previously cited show that the activation state varies depending on the crank an-
gle, these constants must be defined over a range of activation states. Clearly,
obtaining these constants for each of the muscles in the functional groups of in-
terest is a difficult task.
While alternative objective functions may be defined, the efficacy of a
particular function must be judged based on the results of two tests. Assuming
that the human engine responds to a given load demand optimally, one test is
that the actual biomechanics of pedaling be accurately reproduced by the com-
puted biomechanics when the objective function is minimized. As noted earlier,
both the joint moment and muscle stress-based objective functions have been sub-
jected to this test by Redfield and Hull (1986b) with good results. Thus, both
these objective functions merit a degree of confidence. Undertaking a compara-
tive study to determine whether in fact "optimized" human performance is bet-
ter than nonoptimized is a second test. Neither of the objective functions defined
by Redfield and Hull (1986b) has yet been subjected to this test. In order to gain
added confidence in these objective functions, undertaking this second test ap-
pears to be a meaningful direction for future research in cycling biomechanics.
References
Bolourchi, F., & Hull, M.L. (1985). Measurement of rider induced loads during simulated
bicycling. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 308-329.
Carter, B.L., Morehead, J., Wolpert, S.M., Hammerschlag, S.B., Griffiths, H.J., &
Kahn, P.C. (1977). Cross-sech.0~1 anatomy: Computed tomography and ultrasound
correlation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Coast, J:R:, &+WeIch, 'N.G. (1985). Lineair kct eak in optha1 pedalling mte4ith in-
heabed power on'tlYlif"in$icycld erg~metij:~Europ&an Journal of Applied Physibl-
O&J, 53, 339-342. * I I( A s e h
~ r o ~ s l i f e l d ~ R.Dr, & BWd, RIA. (19814": A pflysiolagically Wdrcriterion of muscle^
force prklictiietl in locotklotion. Jounidl of Bidtnechani~s, 14, 793-801. 8
'
th, Education, and Wel-
r * t i . *
Gregm, R.J., Green, D., &
".'of selected muscle Sctivity in-el
K. Kedzior, &A. Wit @d$.),%B
' sify Park press.
Gfbsd'eiLordernann, Hgi & - ~ U I I ~ P $ E.&. ($937). D
Arbeitsgeschftrindrgkeit auf d %&r b e i &d
l'jfahren [The influence of power and velocity
in bicycling]. Arbeitsphysiologie, 9, 454-475.
in, J.P., Giese, M.D$ & Spitznage:l@. (1981). Effecthf w i n g
exercise respbndes of competitive cfrclis&. Journal sf Applied
-*>y i P i ~ ~ ' 1 7 f f <
M. (1985). ~&~d*fcni6iWcX:WcalMyshd%$cle~ing.
"Tr" .,
. , & Hull, M.L. (19867.: Atialysis of ~ r n me a c m~ ~ t 1 3 inaIricycling. humd
9 ' L V ".
L. (1986a). ~nf&rt?lbti&~- johlt fii5mbnts andrpedaUing
rates 'at consMt power in bicycling. Journal of Bioitrechanics, 19,* 3 17-329,
Redfield, R., & Hull, M.E. (1986b). Predtdion of pedal forces in bicycling using opti-
mization meth&s.'~ournal of Biomecham'cs, 19, 523-539. - 1 4
G.I., Duffy, J., Steward, P.A., Litchman, W.M$ Hawley,-R.H., &@aslay, P:R.
976):'Partially activated 6ktSTetlfl muscle: Ah exI'P&timental lnfrestigatidn of f m i
velocity, and EMG. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 43, 81-86.