Isometric, Dynamic, and Manual Muscle Strength Measures and Their Association With Cycling Performance in Elite Paracyclists.

OBJECTIVE: Paracycling classification aims to generate fair competition by discriminating between levels of activity limitation. This study investigated the relationship between lower limb manual muscle tests (MMT) with ratio-scaled measures of isometric and dynamic strength and of the ratio-scaled measures with cycling performance. DESIGN: Fifty-six para cyclists (44 males, 12 females) with leg impairments performed isometric and dynamic strength tests: leg push and pull, and an all-out 20-sec sprint. The MMT results were obtained from the classification database ( n = 21) and race speeds from time trials ( n = 54). RESULTS: Regression analyses showed significant associations of MMT with isometric push ( R2 = 0.49), dynamic push ( R2 = 0.35), and dynamic pull ( R2 = 0.28). Isometric strength was significantly correlated with dynamic push (ρ = 0.63) and pull (ρ = 0.54). The isometric and dynamic tests were significantly associated with sprint power and race speed ( R2 = 0.16-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The modified MMT and ratio-scaled measures were significantly associated. The significant relation of isometric and dynamic strength with sprint power and race speed maps the impact of lower limb impairments on paracycling performance. The MMT and the isometric and dynamic measures show potential for use in paracycling classification.

Bicycling and Tricycling Road Race Performance in International Para-Cycling Events Between 2011 and 2019.

ABSTRACT: This study described bicycling (C classes) and tricycling (T classes) performance in the International Cycling Federation road race events between 2011 and 2019. A total of 3243 race results from 33 events were analyzed. Race velocity was calculated for each result. Bicycling and tricycling data were separately modeled using a linear mixed-effects model. Bicycling velocity was statistically different between all adjacent men's classes (Cohen d = 0.14-0.73) and between the women's C1 and C2 (d = 1.15) and C3 and C4 (d = 0.48) classes. The absence of statistical differences between some women's bicycling classes may be due to a limited number of observations in these classifications. As expected, velocity was statistically different between men's (d = 1.64) and women's (d = 1.38) T1 and T2 classes. Road race performance was hierarchical within the disciplines of bicycling and tricycling, although not all adjacent women's bicycling classes were statistically different. The existence of a performance hierarchy does not necessarily validate the classification system. The integration of information regarding athlete impairment type and severity, with performance data, would provide greater insight into the validity of the classification system and should be prioritized as an area of future research.

Para-cycling race performance in different sport classes.

PURPOSE: The para-cycling classification system, consisting of five classes (C1-C5) for bicycling (C5 athletes having least impairments), is mostly based on expert-opinion rather than scientific evidence. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in race performance between para-cycling classes. METHODS: From official results of the men's 1 km time trials for classes C1-C5 of seven Union Cycliste Internationale World Championships and Paralympics, median race speed of the five fastest athletes in each class was calculated (n = 175). Para-cycling results were expressed as a percentage of able-bodied performance using race results from the same years (n = 35). To assess differences between consecutive classes, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Mann-Whitney U post hoc tests were performed, correcting for multiple testing (p < 0.013). RESULTS: Para-cyclists in C1 reached 75% (median ± interquartile range = 44.8 ± 4.2 km/h) and in C5 90% (53.5 ± 2.9 km/h) of able-bodied race speed (59.4 ± 0.9 km/h). Median race speed between consecutive classes was significantly different (χ2 = 142.6, p < 0.01), except for C4 (52.1 ± 2.8 km/h) and C5 (U = 447.0, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current para-cycling classification does not clearly differentiate between classes with least impairments. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe current classification system is not evidence-based and does not clearly differentiate between relevant groups of para-cyclists.An evidence-based para-cycling classification system is essential for a fair and equitable competition.Fair competition will make it more interesting and increase participation.Para-cycling can inspire everyone with and even those without disabilities to be physically active.