{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05088852988691438, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05775444264943457, 'mean_word_length': 3.9441117764471056, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impact of Short Cranks on 3-Min All-Out Cycling Test and Critical Power Metrics

The 3-minute all-out cycling test (3MT) is a valid, practical, and time effective method for determining Critical Power (CP) and intensities used in training and competition for cyclists. Changing the crank length (CL) on a bicycle may affect an individual’s ability to produce and/or maintain power output while cycling. A change in CP due to CL differences would lend to a change in the ability of the cyclist to maintain power output. PURPOSE: To determine the impact of short crank arms on the metrics of the 3MT. METHODS: A total of 9 recreationally trained male cyclists (27.6 ± 7.5 yrs.) participated in the study. Subjects completed an incremental cycle test to determine V ̇O2peak (57.4 ± 6.4 ml/kg/in; 366 ± 47 W) and gas exchange threshold (276 ± 59 W) to calculate the resistance for the 3MT. Session two consisted of a familiarization trial of the 3MT. For sessions three and four, subjects completed the 3MT using CLs of 145 (short crank, SC) and 175mm (normal crank, NC). CL was determined in a randomized counterbalanced format. T-tests were utilized to determine differences between outcome variables of the 3MT. RESULTS: Peak power and peak cadence were significantly higher in the SC trial compared to the NC trial (SC 531 ± 116 vs NC 496 ± 113 W, p = 0.00; SC 168.9 ± 9.2 vs NC 157.6 ± 8.9 RPM, p = 0.00). The mean cadence over the last 30 sec of the 3MT did not differ between CLs (SC 93.4 ± 13.9 vs NC 93.0 ± 13.0 RPM, p = 0.79), but the average pedal speed over the same 30 sec was significantly slower in the SC trial compared to the NC trial (SC 1.41 ± 0.21 vs NC 1.70 ± 0.23 m/s, p = 0.00). CP (SC 287 ± 41 vs NC 287 ± 46 W, p = 0.97) and work above end power (WEP) (SC 12.2 ± 4.0 vs NC 11.4 ± 3.4 kJ, p = 0.08) were not significantly different between CL trials. CONCLUSION: CP was not different in the current study and demonstrated that changing CL by as much 30mm may not be a major factor in maintaining submaximal power output when position on the bike is maintained between CLs. However, individual differences among the subjects reveal changing CL could affect CP by up to 20 watts; some individuals performed better with 175mm while others performed better with 145mm. Cyclists should begin testing CLs to determine if a CL outside of the typically prescribed norms of within 2.5mm of 172.5mm could possibly benefit their performance and comfort while cycling.