LAUSR

We would like to thank Drs Sun and Li for their interests and observations for our recently published article entitled “Muscular activity patterns in 1-legged vs. 2-legged pedaling”. We have carefully read their letter and agree with their underlying premise that our low cadence is not indicative of competitive, recreational, or (in some cases) clinical 2-legged pedaling cadence. However, our results were not meant to be extrapolated to higher cadences, as clearly stated in the Limitations Section of the Discussion: “The results of this study do not necessarily extend to muscular control in one-legged pedaling tasks with different mechanical demands, as our participants were asked to perform pedaling tasks with relatively low crank torque and velocity.” Further, we stand by the initial statement of the Abstract that “One-legged pedaling is of interest to elite cyclists and clinicians.” In the Introduction we cite 2 studies that refer to 1-legged cycling: “As such, 1-legged pedaling has been suggested as a training tool to improve pedaling performance and is used in clinical settings for rehabilitation.” Our opening Abstract statement (which would presumably be read before the Results and Discussion) was not meant to imply that our study results would be directly applicable to elite cyclists and all clinical populations/treatments, as Drs Sun and Li seem to infer. It is well-established in the cycling literature that muscle activities change with cadence and power. 7 Muscular activity patterns found at the low 30 revolutions per minute (rpm) pedaling rate could still be informative to clinicians. A previous study examined muscle coordination strategy in 2-legged pedaling from 20 rpm to 50 rpm in 10 rpm increments, and reported 30 rpm as the easiest pedaling rate for their stroke