Saddle Height and Cadence Effects on the Physiological, Perceptual, and Affective Responses of Recreational Cyclists

• Published in: Perceptual and motor skills Vol. 125; no. 5; pp. 923 - 938
• Main Authors: Kruschewsky, Alberto B., Dellagrana, Rodolfo A., Rossato, Mateus, Ribeiro, Luiz Fernando P., Lazzari, Caetano D., Diefenthaeler, Fernando
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.10.2018; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Adult; Bicycling; Bicycling - physiology; Bicycling - psychology; Exercise - psychology; Exercise Test; Heart rate; Heart Rate - physiology; Humans; Male; Oxygen Consumption - physiology; Perception; Physical Endurance; Physical Exertion; Posture; Torque; Young Adult; exercise test; bicycling; exercise psychology
• ISSN: 0031-5125; 1558-688X
• DOI: 10.1177/0031512518786803

Saddle height influences cycling performance and would be expected to influence cyclists physically, perceptually, and emotionally. We investigated how different saddle positions and cadences might affect cyclists’ torque, heart rate, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and affective responses (Feeling scale). Nine male recreational cyclists underwent cycling sessions on different days under different conditions with a constant load. On Day 1, the saddle was at the reference position (109% of the distance from the pubic symphysis to the ground), and on Days 2 and 3, the saddle was in the “upward position” (reference + 2.5%) and “downward position” (reference − 2.5%) in random order. Each session lasted 30 minutes and was divided into three cadence-varied 10-minute stages without interruption: (a) freely chosen cadence (FCC), (b) FCC − 20%, and (c) FCC + 20%. We assessed all dependent measures at the end of each 10 minute stage. While there was no significant interaction (Saddle × Cadence) for any of the analyzed variables, torque values were higher at lower cadences in all saddle configurations, and the FCC + 20% cadence was associated with faster heart rate, higher RPE, and lower affect compared with FCC and FCC − 20% in all saddle positions. At all cadences, the saddle at “downward position” generated a higher RPE compared with “reference position” and “upward position.” The affective response was lower in the “downward position” compared with the “reference position.” Thus, while cyclists perceived the downward (versus reference) saddle position as greater exercise effort, they also associated it with unpleasant affect.