Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Treadmill vs Steptreadmill Ergometry.

The Physician and sportsmedicine·2016
Same author

Relationships among selected tests of spatial orientation ability.

Journal of motor behavior·2013
Same author

Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2005
Same author

Functional and locomotive characteristics of stroke survivors in Japanese community-based rehabilitation.

American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation·2002
Same author

The effects of a weight belt on trunk and leg muscle activity and joint kinematics during the squat exercise.

Journal of strength and conditioning research·2001
Same author

Results of a nationwide Veterans Affairs initiative to align graduate medical education and patient care.

JAMA·2001

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 28, 2026

Experimental Protocol of a Three-minute, All-out Arm Crank Exercise Test in Spinal-cord Injured and Able-bodied Individuals
07:32

Experimental Protocol of a Three-minute, All-out Arm Crank Exercise Test in Spinal-cord Injured and Able-bodied Individuals

Published on: June 8, 2017

A physiological comparison of forward vs reverse wheelchair ergometry

A L Linden1, G J Holland, S F Loy

  • 1Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Northridge 91330.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
|November 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary

Reverse wheelchair ergometry (REV) is more physiologically efficient than forward wheelchair ergometry (FOR). REV requires fewer strikes per minute (SPM) and demonstrates higher net mechanical efficiency (ME) across various power outputs (PO).

More Related Videos

Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury
08:07

Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury

Published on: February 1, 2018

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion
08:55

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion

Published on: February 5, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 28, 2026

Experimental Protocol of a Three-minute, All-out Arm Crank Exercise Test in Spinal-cord Injured and Able-bodied Individuals
07:32

Experimental Protocol of a Three-minute, All-out Arm Crank Exercise Test in Spinal-cord Injured and Able-bodied Individuals

Published on: June 8, 2017

Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury
08:07

Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury

Published on: February 1, 2018

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion
08:55

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion

Published on: February 5, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Exercise Physiology
  • Biomechanics
  • Rehabilitation Science

Background:

  • Wheelchair ergometry is a common method for assessing physical capacity and training.
  • Forward wheelchair ergometry (FOR) is the conventional method, but its efficiency is debated.
  • Exploring alternative ergometry modes like reverse wheelchair ergometry (REV) may offer improved physiological benefits.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare metabolic and cardiopulmonary responses between FOR and REV at equivalent power outputs (PO).
  • To evaluate the physiological efficiency of REV compared to FOR.
  • To determine the potential of REV as an alternative for wheelchair ambulation.

Main Methods:

  • Twenty-one moderately active able-bodied subjects performed 3-minute exercise stages at 15, 20, 25, and 30 W on both FOR and REV ergometers.
  • Measured physiological responses included oxygen uptake (VO2), pulmonary ventilation (VE), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), heart rate (HR), net mechanical efficiency (ME), revolutions per minute (RPM), and strikes per minute (SPM).

Main Results:

  • FOR exercise elicited significantly higher VO2, VE, and HR compared to REV (P < 0.05).
  • Net mechanical efficiency (ME) was significantly higher for REV than FOR across all PO levels (P < 0.05).
  • Strikes per minute (SPM) were nearly halved in REV compared to FOR (P < 0.01), while RPM remained consistent.

Conclusions:

  • Reverse wheelchair ergometry (REV) demonstrates superior physiological efficiency compared to forward wheelchair ergometry (FOR).
  • REV requires less physical exertion (lower SPM) for equivalent power outputs.
  • REV warrants further investigation as a potentially more effective method for wheelchair ambulation and exercise.