Skip to main content
Log in

Response to Letter to the Editor: a counterweight is not necessary to implement simple, natural and comfortable single-leg cycle training

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dr. Dolmage and colleagues commented on a recent publication titled, “Cardiovascular responses to counterweighted single-leg cycling: implications for rehabilitation.” They assert that a counterweight is not required to facilitate natural single-leg cycling, rather a fixed gear ergometer can also accomplish the same goal. We agree with Dolmage and colleagues that a fixed gear ergometer can facilitate natural single-leg cycling with minimal deviation in the angular velocity of the crank if the kinetic energy of the flywheel is large. We also present some simple comparisons between the two modalities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abbreviations

RPM:

Revolutions per minute

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John McDaniel.

Additional information

Communicated by Klaas R. Westerterp/Håkan Westerblad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burns, K.J., Martin, J.C., Elmer, S.J. et al. Response to Letter to the Editor: a counterweight is not necessary to implement simple, natural and comfortable single-leg cycle training. Eur J Appl Physiol 114, 2457–2458 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-014-2965-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-014-2965-z

Keywords

Navigation