Effect of Saddle height on skin temperature measured in different days of cycling.

Infrared thermography can be useful to explore the effects of exercise on neuromuscular function. During cycling, it could be used to investigate the effects of saddle height on thermoregulation. The aim of this study was to examine whether different cycling postures, elicited by different knee flexion angles, could influence skin temperature. Furthermore, we also determined whether the reproducibility of thermal measurements in response to cycling differed in the body regions affected or not affected by saddle height. Sixteen cyclists participated in three tests of 45 min of cycling at their individual 50 % peak power output. Each test was performed in a different knee flexion position on the bicycle (20°, 30°, 40° knee flexion when the pedal crank was at 180°). Different knee angles were obtained by changing saddle height. Skin temperatures were determined by infrared thermography before, immediately after and 10 min after the cycling test, in 16 different regions of interest (ROI) in the trunk and lower limbs. Changes in saddle height did not result in changes in skin temperature in the ROI. However, lower knee flexion elicited higher temperature in popliteus after cycling than higher flexion (p = 0.008 and ES = 0.8), and higher knee flexion elicited lower temperature variation in the tibialis anterior than intermediate knee flexion (p = 0.004 and ES = 0.8). Absolute temperatures obtained good and very good intraday reproducibility in the different measurements (ICCs between 0.44 and 0.85), but temperature variations showed lower reproducibility (ICCs between 0.11 and 0.74). Different postures assumed by the cyclist due to different saddle height did not influence temperature measurements. Skin temperature can be measured on different days with good repeatability, but temperature variations can be more sensitive to the effects of an intervention

A pragmatic approach to resolving technological unfairness: The case of Nike’s Vaporfly & Alphafly running footwear

Background Technology is often introduced into sport to facilitate it or to improve human performance within it. On occasion, some forms of novel technology require regulation or prevention entirely to ensure that a sport remains fair and accessible. Recently, the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly shoes have received some concerns over their appropriateness for use in competitive distance running. Methods This paper evaluates the use of these shoes against an existing framework for sports technology discourse and adopts a pragmatic approach to attempt to resolve them. Results It is proposed that the three concerns regarding cost, access and coercion cannot be ruled out but likely remain short term issues. As a result, it is proposed that these running shoes are acceptable forms of technology but that ongoing vigilance will be required as such technologies develop further in the future. Conclusions The Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes do push the perceived acceptability of running shoes to the limits of the current sports regulations. However, the alleged gains have not manifested themselves to a level that could be considered excessive when reviewing historical performances or when evaluated against a set of well-cited criteria. The sport will need to adopt a stance of ongoing vigilance as such technologies continue to develop or be optimised in the future