-------------------------------
Peveler, W., Pounders, J., & Bishop, P. (2007, November). EFFECTS OF SADDLE HEIGHT ON ANAEROBIC POWER PRODUCTION IN CYCLING. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1023-1027. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Abstract
In competitive cycling, setting the proper saddle height is important for both performance and injury prevention. This is also true for ergometer use in a laboratory. The cycling literature recommends using a 25 to 35° knee angle to set saddle height for injury prevention and recommends using 109% of inseam length for optimal performance. Prior research has demonstrated that these 2 methods do not produce similar saddle heights. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in performance between these 2 methods. Trained cyclists (n = 9) and noncyclists (n = 18) participated in this study. Anaerobic power production was compared using a 30s Wingate protocol at a saddle height of 109% of inseam and at 25 and 35° knee angles. Saddle height set using 109% of inseam fell outside the recommended 25 to 35° knee angle 63% of the time. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) for peak power and mean power in either group between saddle heights. The data when using 109% to set saddle height were then divided into those that fell within the recommended 25 to 35° knee angle and those that fell outside. A 25° knee angle produced a significantly higher mean power compared with 109% in those that fell outside the recommended range. An increase in power, at a 25° angle, can be extrapolated to increased performance. There was no difference in performance detected in those individuals who fell within the recommended range. For this reason it is recommended that saddle height for cycles and ergometers be set using a 25 to 35° knee angle for both trained and untrained cyclists for both injury prevention and increased performance.
NOTES
Subjects at 155 knee angle produced higher mean power than those outside the range (higher saddle height) that used percentage of inseam.
Refers to Lemond method and includes reference.
Indicates only 2 of the methods have been studied and published in peer-reviewed journals. Includes citations p. 1023
Hamley method (1967) is 109% of inseam measured vertically from the floor to ischium in the standing position. Measured from pedal axle to top of seat with pedal in most distal position. Other studies confirm this method provides optimum aerobic power.
Holmes method (Holmes, Pruitt, and Whalen, 1994), saddle height is 25-35 knee angle. Recommended for reducing risk of overuse injury. The Hamley method only puts a cyclist's knee within the Holmes method range 45% of the time (Peveler et al. 2005)
Majority of professional cyclists pedal at 90 RPM or greater. (Lucia et al 2001)
This study sought to examine if Hamley method for performance or the Holmes method for injury prevention.
Based on their research and other research, concluded that wingate test is good performance indicator and can detect differences in set-up changes.
Used cyclists and non-cyclists in study.
No significant differences in mean power or peak power between 25 degree, 35 degree knee angle, and 109% of inseam method. No significant saddle height differences based on gender either.
Subjects whose 109% result fell outside the 25-35 range demonstrated a significant difference in mean power compared to their 25 knee angle trial. However, when only cyclists were examined in this group, the comparison was close to, but not significantly different. (p = .069). Those with lower saddle height (outside the range) had a mean power significantly higher at 25 degrees and this was true for both cyclists and non-cyclists. In individuals with higher saddle height (less than 25 degrees) no differences were found when compared to mean or peak power compared to 25 degrees.
"There were no significant differences found between a knee angle of 25 and 35 degrees or between 35 degree knee angle and 109% of inseam in any measure during the study"
The 109% method fell with the recommended range 37% of the time.
Reports that studies did show decreased performance at lower saddle heights, although knee angle was not measured p. 1026
When knee angles measured on subjects' regular bike set-up, all fell within recommended range except one. Mean knee angle was 26. Authors indicate this could be the reason performance declined outside the range. Lists references indicating there is specificity for cycling position in cyclists and triathletes (p. 1026)
Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) recommended from research data that using the 25-35 angle produces better results than a percentage of inseam (109%), which fell outside of this range in some subjects. This provides evidence that dynamic measurement is superior.
Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) data suggest a higher power with higher saddle height in both cyclists and non-cyclists.
It is problematic that other studies recommend saddle height based on inseam alone. One problem is the variability of knee angles that results. Establishing saddle height based on inseam is problematic as studies indicate measurements based on inseam yield highly variable knee angles (Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007), and (Peveler et al. 2005)) 37% and 45% respectively. This may be due to anthropometric differences femur, tibia, foot differences. Or, perhaps pedalling style differences, or load, or incline. Or mechanical differences Pedal, seat, crank arm (q-factor).
Use of knee angle is superior because of the limiting extreme positions (Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop, 2007) and is recommended by fit experts who deal with injuries (Baker, Pruitt)
Some studies have shown decrease power at lower saddle heights, but knee angle was not used (Hamley and Thomas 1967; Shenum, Devries 1976; Nordeen-Snyder, 1977). Since Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) demonstrated the differences or saddle height techniques and emphasizes the use of knee angle, a need exists for studying performance variables based on knee angles.
Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) examined performance based on anaerobic power using the Wingate test, whereas in the current study aerobic efficiency was examined.
Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) found no significant differences between 25 and 35 degrees so in this study we sought to examine angles outside of this range.
No significant differences in mean power or peak power between 25 degree, 35 degree knee angle, and 109% of inseam method (Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop, 2007)
Recommends using the range and closer to 25 degrees.
This supports Peveler, Pounders, and Bishop (2007) lack of significance in differences at 25, 35, and the 109% inseam methods.
Both Martin and Peveler established their testing that performance may have been effected by specificity. Given that other studies (??) support specificity it is interesting that these findings show no significance outside the normal range.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
