Para-Cycling Performance was Rather Limited by Physiological than Functional Factors

The relation between sprint power and road time trial performance in elite para-cyclists

OBJECTIVES

Whilst cycling performance has been studied extensively, very little is known about the performance of para-cyclists. This study assessed the relation between sprint power and road time trial performance in elite para-cyclists, and whether this relation differed based on impairment type and type of bike used.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

During international para-cycling events, 168 athletes (88 bicycles, 17 tricycles, 56 recumbent handbikes and 7 kneeling handbikes) performed 20-s sport-specific sprint tests (mean power output (POmean) W), and their road time trial performance (average speed (km/h)) was taken from the official results. Multilevel regression models to assess the relation of sprint with time trial performance were composed for i. leg-cyclists: bicycle and tricycle and ii. arm-cyclists: recumbent- and kneeling handbike, adjusted for identified confounders. Furthermore, impairment type (categorized as i) muscle power/range of motion, ii) limb deficiency/leg length difference, and iii) coordination) and bike type were tested as effect modifiers.

RESULTS

POmean ranged from 303 ± 12 W for recumbent handcyclists to 482 ± 156 W for bicyclists. POmean was significantly related to time trial performance, for both leg-cyclists (β = 0.010, SE = 0.003, p < 0.01) and arm-cyclists (β = 0.029; SE = 0.005, p < 0.01), and impairment type and bike type were not found to be effect modifiers.

CONCLUSIONS

Sprint power was related to road time trial performance in all para-cyclists, with no differences found in this relation based on impairment type nor bike type. For those competing on a bicycle, tricycle, recumbent- or kneeling handbike, sprint tests might therefore be useful to predict or monitor time trial performance.

Do Handcycling Time-Trial Velocities Achieved by Para-Cycling Athletes Vary Across Handcycling Classes?

The classification system for handcycling groups athletes into five hierarchical classes, based on how much their impairment affects performance. Athletes in class H5, with the least impairments, compete in a kneeling position, while athletes in classes H1 to H4 compete in a recumbent position. This study investigated the average time-trial velocity of athletes in different classes. A total of 1,807 results from 353 athletes who competed at 20 international competitions (2014-2018) were analyzed. Multilevel regression was performed to analyze differences in average velocities between adjacent pairs of classes, while correcting for gender, age, and event distance. The average velocity of adjacent classes was significantly different (p < .01), with higher classes being faster, except for H4 and H5. However, the effect size of the differences between H3 and H4 was smaller (d = 0.12). Hence, results indicated a need for research in evaluating and developing evidence-based classification in handcycling, yielding a class structure with meaningful performance differences between adjacent classes.

The impact of lower-limb prosthetic limb use in international C4 track para-cycling

An investigation was undertaken to ascertain any impact or significance of athletes within the C4 paracycling classification between those who use a lower-limb prostheses and those who do not. A statistical evaluation of event completion time was undertaken to assess C4 cyclists when competing at the World Championships and the Paralympic Games in the 1 km track time trial. The C4 athletes who utilize a prostheses consistently outperformed non-amputees in the C4 classification from 2011 to 2016 on a competition-to-competition basis. However, when the participations were grouped as a whole together and an identified outlier athlete was removed, it was then demonstrated that there was no statistical significance between those who required the use of a lower-limb prostheses to those that did not when either evaluated on a competition-by-competition or on an amputee and non-amputee group-by-group basis (p ≥ 0.05). As a result, this study proposes that those requiring the use of lower-limb prostheses are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged in the C4 classification category when competing in the 1 km time trial at this time. Implications for Rehabilitation This analysis indicates that at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that use of such technology is advantageous in this category or should be seen as controversial. The design of lower-limb prosthetic limb technology in cycling should continue to be developed and optimized unabated. This study begins to address the cited lack of peer-reviewed information regarding paracycling with limb absence available to practitioners.

Positive Pacing Strategies Are Utilized by Elite Male and Female Para-cyclists in Short Time Trials in the Velodrome

In para-cycling, competitors are classed based on functional impairment resulting in cyclists with neurological and locomotor impairments competing against each other. In Paralympic competition, classes are combined by using a factoring adjustment to race times to produce the overall medallists. Pacing in short-duration track cycling events is proposed to utilize an “all-out” strategy in able-bodied competition. However, pacing in para-cycling may vary depending on the level of impairment. Analysis of the pacing strategies employed by different classification groups may offer scope for optimal performance; therefore, this study investigated the pacing strategy adopted during the 1-km time trial (TT) and 500-m TT in elite C1 to C3 para-cyclists and able-bodied cyclists. Total times and intermediate split times (125-m intervals; measured to 0.001 s) were obtained from the C1-C3 men's 1-km TT (n = 28) and women's 500-m TT (n = 9) from the 2012 Paralympic Games and the men's 1-km TT (n = 19) and women's 500-m TT (n = 12) from the 2013 UCI World Track Championships from publically available video. Split times were expressed as actual time, factored time (for the para-cyclists) and as a percentage of total time. A two-way analysis of variance was used to investigate differences in split times between the different classifications and the able-bodied cyclists in the men's 1-km TT and between the para-cyclists and able-bodied cyclists in the women's 500-m TT. The importance of position at the first split was investigated with Kendall's Tau-b correlation. The first 125-m split time was the slowest for all cyclists, representing the acceleration phase from a standing start. C2 cyclists were slowest at this 125-m split, probably due to a combination of remaining seated in this acceleration phase and a high proportion of cyclists in this group being trans-femoral amputees. Not all cyclists used aero-bars, preferring to use drop, flat or bullhorn handlebars. Split times increased in the later stages of the race, demonstrating a positive pacing strategy. In the shorter women's 500-m TT, rank at the first split was more strongly correlated with final position than in the longer men's 1-km TT. In conclusion, a positive pacing strategy was adopted by the different para-cycling classes.