Level ground and uphill cycling efficiency in seated and standing positions
8 well-trained cyclists, 6-min field trials at 75% of peak power: gross efficiency (22.4%) did not differ between level seated, uphill seated and uphill standing; heart rate was higher standing; 30-s sprint power was higher standing (803 W) than seated (635 W); cadence is not reported in the abstract
The study tested whether riding seated or standing, on flat ground and uphill, changes gross external efficiency (GE) and economy (EC). Content from the abstract only.
Participants
n=8 well-trained cyclists (abstract: "Eight well-trained cyclists"). Sex, age and VO2max are not given in the abstract.
Protocol
In randomised order, five 6-min efforts at 75% of peak power output, ridden on a velodrome or up a hill, seated or standing.
Mechanical power from an SRM crankset; energy consumption from a portable gas analyser (Cosmed K4b2).
Every rider also did three maximal 30-s sprints, either on a lab cycle ergometer or outdoors in the field, seated or standing.
Hill gradient and cadence in each condition are not given in the abstract.
Key Results
GE was 22.4 +/- 1.5% (CV = 5.6%) and EC 4.69 +/- 0.33 kJ x L-1, with a CV of 5.7%; neither differed across the level-seated, uphill-seated and uphill-standing conditions.
Heart rate was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in standing position.
In the uphill trials, minute ventilation was higher (P < 0.05) standing than seated.
Average 30-s power output was higher (P < 0.01) standing (803 +/- 103 W) than seated (635 +/- 123 W) or on the stationary ergometer (603 +/- 81 W).
Authors: in high-intensity cycling in the field, neither gradient nor body position seems to have more than a negligible effect on external efficiency; riders can make more short-term power standing, probably because each pedal revolution develops more force; how the standing position is technically executed may be one of the strongest influences on the metabolic responses.
Practical Application
"Is standing on a climb less efficient than sitting?" In 8 well-trained cyclists riding 6 min at 75% of peak power on a velodrome or a hill (randomised order, field gas analysis), gross efficiency was 22.4 +/- 1.5% and did not differ between level seated, uphill seated and uphill standing, though heart rate was higher standing; in 30-s sprints, standing produced 803 +/- 103 W against 635 +/- 123 W seated. Standing costs some heart rate (and ventilation uphill) for the same efficiency; it buys short-term power.
What it does not show: anything about low cadence as such (cadence is not reported in the abstract), or about training in one position or the other — it is one set of acute trials.
Inference, not tested here: for steady climbing at this intensity, choose seated or standing by comfort and the higher heart rate of standing rather than by expected efficiency; for a short surge, standing gave more power.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the seated cue for low-cadence intervals in SYNTH-82 is practice; this study did not test seated versus standing low-cadence work.
Limitations
n=8; sex, age and fitness beyond "well-trained" not given in the abstract.
Acute only; one intensity (75% of peak power) and 6-min bouts.
Five 6-min trials are reported, but the abstract names GE comparisons for three conditions only (level seated, uphill seated, uphill standing).
Hill gradient and cadences not given in the abstract, so position and cadence effects cannot be separated.
Field gas analysis with a portable analyser; CVs about 5.6-5.7%, so small efficiency differences may be undetectable with 8 riders.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
(within-subject design, n=8)