Cycling has been the subject of numerous studies. Among these, measuring muscular performance during cycling has attracted much interest.
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the relationship between Wattbike and isokinetic findings in a group of cyclists.
METHODS:
Thirty-seven male cyclists performed a 30-s anaerobic power test on a Wattbike and then were tested concentrically for knee extensor and flexor strength using isokinetic dynamometry.
RESULTS:
There was a positive fair-to-moderate correlation between the peak moment, peak power, and total work derived from the Wattbike and the respective parameters evaluated isokinetically.
CONCLUSION:
While the findings exclude interchangeability of the two methods, the fact that total work is the most closely associated parameter among the measurements highlights its importance as an outcome measure in muscle performance in cyclists.
Different sports require different athletic abilities. Characteristics such as strength, agility and flexibility are fundamental and necessary to support what each sport demands. Measurement of muscular condition has therefore been an increasing concern of health professionals, coaches, and researchers [1, 2, 3, 4].
Monitoring and evaluating training loads in high performance athletes has been an indispensable factor in the field of sports medicine. Therefore, coaches and researchers have frequently employed tests that aim to evaluate athlete’s muscular capacity, allowing them to follow not only the evolution of athletic performance, but also to identify possible cases of overtraining, and issues that could be related to sports injuries [5].
Cycling is a sport with complex characteristics, studied by many different groups. Presently, cycling is a deepening topic of study, with the goal of developing methods of measuring muscular performance during this activity [6]. Isokinetic dynamometry is currently the “gold standard” for this evaluation. However, it employs a high-cost device, making its use less feasible in clinical practice [7, 8]. Therefore, it is pertinent to know about alternative systems to evaluate muscular performance in athletes, with better applicability and lower financial demand to clinicians.
Alternatives for determining the physical conditioning of athletes are available, and among them cycle ergometery is highlighted [9]. The Wattbike is a model of cycle ergometer that has been used in athletic environments and also as an object of study in research laboratories related to cycling, concerning the measurement of the athlete’s muscular performance, as well as monitoring the intensity of their training [5, 10, 11]. However, we were not able to trace a study that related to a possible relationship in muscular performance between findings derived by the Wattbike and their respective isokinetic counterparts. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Wattbike and isokinetic findings in a group of cyclists.
Method
Participants
Thirty-seven male competitive cyclists with a mean age of 34 ( 11) years, body mass of 75.4 ( 12) kg, height of 1.7 ( 0.1) meters, and body mass index of 24.4 ( 2.8) kg/m participated in this study. The data collection took place between June and December of 2018. The eligibility criteria were: Inclusion: (I) age between 18 and 55 years old; (II) practice the sport for at least one year. Exclusion: (I) presence of previous lower limb injuries in the last year; (II) history of previous surgeries in the lower limbs in the last year; (III) presence of cardiovascular, orthopedic or neurological disorders that could compromise the performance of the test. The researchers invited the cyclists to participate through social media.
Study design
This cross-sectional study was performed according to STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) recommendations and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Goiás under protocol: 2.040.399. Informed consent was obtained according to the Helsinki Declaration and local resolution.
Study protocol
The data collection began with the application of a questionnaire to obtain identification data and general information regarding age, bodyweight, height, body mass index, cycling practice, experience, and frequency of training. Participants then performed the Wattbike and the Isokinetic Dynamometer test. Participants were briefed on the test procedures prior to the test and performed the evaluations in one day with one examinator previously trained to conduct these tests. An interval of five minutes was given between the tests.
For the Wattbike (Wattbike Pro, Wattbike Ltd, Nottingham, UK) test, the cycle ergometer was adjusted according to the participant’s bicycle measurements with regard to seat height and distance from the table to the floor. The protocol consisted of five minutes of warmup followed by a 30-second anaerobic power test. The load was calculated based on 7.5% of the body mass of the participant. The athletes were instructed to remain seated throughout the test and to exert maximum force during the 30-seconds. One attempt was permitted, the test was performed in the same way in men and women, and the test was invalidated if the subject changed their original position or was incapable to perform the test for 30-seconds. The following variables were assessed: peak moment (PM); mean moment (MM); maximum power (MP); mean power (MePs) and total work (W).
For the Isokinetic test carried out on a Biodex PRO 4 (Biodex, Shirley, NY), the participants were positioned on a chair with the thorax, hip and thigh of the tested limb stabilized by belts. The axis of rotation was aligned with the knee joint (lateral condyle of the femur). The chair was tilted at 80 and the lever arm was adjusted and fixed 2 cm above the lateral malleolus. Bilateral reciprocal concentric-concentric mode of the quadriceps and hamstrings were performed at 60/s (5 repetitions) and 300/s (15 repetitions) with a rest interval of 30 s. The athletes were instructed to use maximum force during the tests. One attempt was permitted, the test was performed in the same way in men and women, and the test was invalidated if the subject changed their original position, or was incapable of using maximum force during all the repetitions. The following variables were assessed: PM, MeP and W.
Statistical analysis
The relationship between the Wattbike and the Isokinetic Dynamometer was the primary outcome of the study. Data analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), version 23.0. Descriptive statistics was performed with means, standard deviations and 95% Confidence Intervals. Shapiro-Wilk’s test was performed to verify the normality of the data. Pearson’s or Spearman’s Coeficient Correlation (r) was calculated. Values between 00 and 0.30 were considered as negligible correlation, 0.30 and 0.50 as low correlation, 0.50–0.70 as moderate correlation, 0.70 and 0.90 as high correlation and 0.90 and 1 as very high correlation [12]. Significance was set at 0.05.
Results
The sample of the study consisted of 37 healthy male cyclists with an experience of 7.8 ( 8) years and a training frequency of 4.5 ( 1.4) days per week. Of these, 14 (37.8%) practiced Mountain Biking, 13 (35.2%) practiced Road Cycling and 10 (27%) were Triathletes. No differences in anthropometric characteristics were found between these groups ( 0.05). Reference values of all parameters are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
Reference values for peak moment, mean moment, maximum power, mean power and total work evaluated using a Wattbike ( 37)
Mean (SD)
IC (95%)
Peak moment (n.m)
71.4
(13.8)
66.8–76
Mean moment (n.m)
32
(8.6)
29.1–34.9
Maximum power (watts)
880.1
(188.8)
817.2–943.1
Mean power (watts)
417.8
(112.3)
380.3–455.2
Total work (joules)
89.3
(13.2)
85–93.8
Abbreviations: SD Standard Deviation; IC Confidence Interval; n.m newton metter.
Reference values for peak moment, mean power and total work evaluated using an isokinetic dynamometer at the speeds of 60/s and 300/s ( 37)
Mean (SD)
IC (95%)
Peak moment 60/s (n.m)
Extension RL
193.3
(30.8)
183–203.6
Extension LL
187.6
(31.8)
177–198.2
Flexion RL
117.6
(130.2)
74.2–161
Flexion LL
95.9
(16.3)
90.4–101.3
Peak moment 300/s (n.m)
Extension RL
104.4
(19.3)
98–110.9
Extension LL
104.1
(18.2)
98–110.2
Flexion RL
80.7
(13.6)
76.2–85.3
Flexion LL
81.4
(13.8)
76.9–86
Mean power 60/s (watts)
Extension RL
125.2
(27.5)
116–134.3
Extension LL
123
(25.4)
109.4–125.6
Flexion RL
66.6
(13.3)
62.2–71.1
Flexion LL
68.6
(13.4)
64.1–73
Mean power 300/s (watts)
Extension RL
212.2
(49.8)
195.5–228.8
Extension LL
212.2
(47.4)
196.3–228
Flexion RL
108.9
(29.2)
99.2–118.7
Flexion LL
113.3
(30.7)
103–123.5
Total work 60/s (joules)
Extension RL
869.8
(177.2)
810.7–928.9
Extension LL
838
(203.8)
770–906
Flexion RL
510.3
(114.4)
472.2–548.5
Flexion LL
505.9
(131.6)
462–549.8
Total work 300/s (joules)
Extension RL
1575
(410.9)
1438–1712
Extension LL
1586.5
(387.6)
1457.3–1715.8
Flexion RL
944
(237.9)
864.7–1023.4
Flexion LL
980.5
(254.7)
895.5–1065.4
Abbreviations: SD Standard Deviation; IC Confidence Interval; n.m newton metter; RL Right Limb; LL Left Limb.
Positive, fair correlations were found between PM evaluated at the Wattbike and the PM evaluated isokinetically at 60/s with the exception of extension moment in the left limb. At 300/s, a moderate correlation was found in the extension moment of the right limb. In addition a similar trend was evident with respect to flexion moments calculated using the Wattbike and the isokinetic dynamometer. Also, fair-to-moderate correlations were found between MM evaluated by the Wattbike and the PM evaluated, isokinetically at both speeds and limbs with the exception of flexion in the left limb at the low speed (Table 3).
Correlation between peak moment and mean moment evaluated using a Wattbike with peak toque evaluated using a isokinetic dynamometer ( 37)
Peak moment (n.m)
Mean moment (n.m)
Peak moment 60/s (n.m)
Extension RL
0.45; 0.005
0.40; 0.016
Extension LL
0.23; 0.165
0.46; 0.004
Flexion RL
0.36; 0.028
0.35; 0.035
Flexion LL
0.33; 0.045
0.30; 0.065
Peak moment 300/s (n.m)
Extension RL
0.56; 0.001
0.43; 0.007
Extension LL
0.28; 0.084
0.53; 0.001
Flexion RL
0.30; 0.072
0.38; 0.018
Flexion LL
0.32; 0.050
0.46; 0.004
Abbreviations: RL: Right Limb; LL: Left Limb; n.m newton metter. Statistical test: Pearson’s or Spearman’s Coeficient Correlation – 00 and 0.30 – negligible; 0.30 and 0.50 – low; 0.50–0.70 – moderate; 0.70 and 0.90 – high; 0.90 and 1 – very high. Significance level for 0.05.
Correlation between maximum power and mean power evaluated using a Wattbike with mean power evaluated using an isokinetic dynamometer ( 37)
Maximum power (watts)
Mean power (watts)
Mean power 60/s (watts)
Extension RL
0.37; 0.026
0.04; 0.782
Extension LL
0.36; 0.028
0.28; 0.083
Flexion RL
0.41; 0.011
0.20; 0.236
Flexion LL
0.53; 0.001
0.27; 0.095
Mean power 300/s (watts)
Extension RL
0.55; 0.001
0.18; 0.262
Extension LL
0.58; 0.001
0.38; 0.020
Flexion RL
0.27; 0.102
-0.00; 0.994
Flexion LL
0.45; 0.006
0.19; 0.23
Abbreviations: RL: Right Limb; LL: Left Limb; Statistical test: Pearson’s Coeficient Correlation – 00 and 0.30 – negligible; 0.30 and 0.50 – low; 0.50–0.70 – moderate; 0.70 and 0.90 – high; 0.90 and 1 – very high. Significance level for 0.05.
Correlation between total work evaluated using a Wattbike with total work evaluated using an isokinetic dynamometer ( 37)
Total work (joules)
Total work 60/s (joules)
Extension RL
0.59; 0.001
Extension LL
0.48; 0.003
Flexion RL
0.48; 0.003
Flexion LL
0.53; 0.001
Total work 300/s (joules)
Extension RL
0.55; 0.001
Extension LL
0.54; 0.001
Flexion RL
0.35; 0.033
Flexion LL
0.47; 0.003
Abbreviations: RL: Right Limb; LL: Left Limb; Statistical test: Pearson’s or Spearman’s Coeficient Correlation – 00 and 0.30 – negligible; 0.30 and 0.50 – low; 0.50–0.70 – moderate; 0.70 and 0.90 – high; 0.90 and 1 – very high. Significance level for 0.05.
Positive, fair-to-moderate correlations were found between MP evaluated by the Wattbike and the MeP evaluated, isokinetically at both speeds and limbs with the exception of flexion in the right limb at the high speed. Also, fair correlation between the Wattbike- based MeP and the extension MeP in the left limb at 300/s was indicated (Table 4). Positive, fair-to-moderate correlations were found between the W in both systems in both speeds and limbs (Table 5).
Discussion
Positive, fair-to-moderate correlations were found between the parameters derived from the Wattbike and those calculated isokinetically. The best correlated parameter between these devices was W while the lowest correlation related to the MeP.
The study of Bastiani et al. [13] supports the current findings claiming that W better represents strength throughout the range of motion while being a significant predictor of the functionalityand more clinically relevant. In comparison, the PM characterizes performance at a single point along the range of motion. Hence the work expanded in a contraction is recommended as the variable of choice of clinicians that opt to use the Wattbike as an instrument to evaluate muscular performance.
In a number of studies, the Wattbike cycle ergometer has only been used as a warmup device for individuals who then underwent risokinetic testing [14, 15, 16]. In this context, isokinetic dynamometry is the gold standard for muscle performance assessement but due to its high-cost, the search for other assessment instruments has been the object of study by many researchers, with the purpose of verifying the possibility of measuring muscle function by different strategies [17, 18, 19]. However, the inter-instrument matching was never established.
The study by Muff et al. [20] verified the validity of the hand-held dynamometer compared to the isokinetic dynamometer in the assessment of the muscle strength of the knee flexors and extensors. The authors found a strong correlation between a maximum isometric voluntary contraction and the peak moment assessed in the concentric, eccentric and isometric modes. The study by D’Alessandro [17] indicated weak correlations when analyzing the relationship between the hop test and isokinetic tests in volleyball players, revealing that the hop test did not furnish an effective alternative for measuring muscle performance. Similarly, Selistre [18] concluded in his study that it was not feasible to replace isokinetic evaluation with the use of the triple hop test. The findings of D’Alessandro [17] and Selistre [18] corroborate with our results, since fair-to-moderate correlations were found for most variables in the analysis between the Wattbike and the isokinetic dynamometer. A possible explanation for the strong correlation found with the hand-held dynamometer and the fair-to-moderate correlations found with other devices are the forms of measurement (open vs. closed kinetic chain).
Baltzopoulos et al. [21], suggested that the protocol used in comparing the Wattbike with the isokinetic dynamometer involved some similar muscle groups. However, despite this similarity the characteristics of the movement performed in these two tests are different. Isokinetic knee flexion and extension is performed in an open kinetic chain with the knee joint acting as the single joint. On the other hand the Wattbike test, involves the the entire lower limb (right and left simultaneously) in a cyclic and parabolic closed kinetic chain [22, 23]. Therefore, the Wattbike may be used as a complement to isokinetic evaluation in closed kinetic chain, being an excellent tool to evaluate cyclists, since the muscle components can be evaluated within the context of the athletic reality.
Conclusion
There is a relationship between the data produced by the Wattbike and that obtained using by isokinetic Dynamometry. However, the inter-method correlations were largely fair-to-moderate on all outcome parameters. Therefore, Wattbike-derived findings cannot replace isokinetic measurements of the tested parameters. The fact that total work is the most closely associated parameter among the measurements highlights its importance as an outcome measure in muscle performance in cyclists. Future studies on this topic should be carried out, using similar methodologies to those used here, evaluating muscular function in different groups of athletes, contributing to this new perspective in sports science.
Author contributions
All authors contributed equally.
Ethical considerations
This cross-sectional study was performed according to STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) recommendations and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Goiás under protocol: 2.040.399. Informed consent was obtained according to the Helsinki Declaration and local resolution.
Funding
The present study was carried out with the support of the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) – Financing Code 001.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors have no acknowledgments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
BennieJAWiesnerGHvan UffelenJGZHarveyJTCraikeMJBiddleSJH. Assessment and monitoring practices of Australian fitness professionals. J Sci Med Sport. 2018; 21(4): 433–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.07.010.
2.
DrissTVandewalleH. The measurement of maximal (anaerobic) power output on a cycle ergometer: a critical review. Bio Med Res. Int. 2013: 1–40. Available from: doi: 10.1155/2013/589361.
3.
GalanBSM. Efeitos da suplementação de taurina e achocolatado sobre os marcadores de lesão muscular, resposta inflamatória e desempenho físico em triatletas. Dissertação (Mestrado) apresentada ao Programa de Pós Graduação em Alimentos e Nutrição, Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNESP – Campus de Araraquara, 2016.
4.
OliveiraSCGOliveiraLMJonesANatourJ. Isokinetic assessment of ankles in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2015; 55(4): 318–24. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.rbre.2014.11.003.
5.
DrillerMWArgusCKBartramJCBonaventuraJMartinDTWestNP, et al. Reliability of a 2-bout exercise test on a wattbike cycle ergometer. Int J Sport Physiol. 2014; 9(2): 340–5. Available from: doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0103.
6.
NetoCDSchmidtGCandottiCTLossJFZaroMAGuimarãesACS. Desenvolvimento de uma plataforma de força em pedal de ciclismo. Rev Bras Biomec. 2001; 3: 39–44.
SaragiottoBTYamatoTPCosiallsAMHLopesAD. Desequilíbrio muscular dos flexores e extensores do joelho associado ao surgimento de lesão musculoesquelética relacionada à corrida: um estudo de coorte prospectivo. Rev Bras Cienc Esporte. 2016; 38(1): 64–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.rbce.2015.12.005.
9.
de OliveiraSFMMachado Ferreira Tenório de OliveiraLBrito-GomesJLPerrier MeloRJda CostaMCde GuimarãesFJSP. Comparação de dois testes indiretos anaeróbicos em futebolistas profissionais e suas correlações com o desempenho aeróbico. Rev Bras Cienc Esporte. 2017; 39(3): 307–13. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.rbce.2017.05.002.
10.
DrillerMWArgusCKShingCM. The reliability of a 30-s sprint test on the wattbike cycle ergometer. Int J Sport Physiol. 2013; 8(4): 379–83. Available from: doi: 10.1123/ijspp.8.4.379.
11.
WainwrightBCookeCBO’HaraJP. The validity and reliability of a sample of 10 wattbike cycle ergometers. J. Sports Sci. 2016; 23; 35(14): 1451–8. Available from: doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1215495.
12.
MukakaMM. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. 2012.
13.
BastianiDRitzelCHBortoluzziSMVazMA. Trabalho e potência dos músculos extensores e flexores do joelho de pacientes com osteoartrite e com artroplastia total de joelho. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2012; 52(2): 195–202. Available from: doi: 10.1590/s0482-50042012000200004.
14.
KielyMAWarringtonGDMcgoldrickAO’loughlinGCullenS. Physiological demands of daily riding gaits in jockeys. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 2019; 59(3). Available from: doi: 10.23736/s0022-4707.18.08196-3.
15.
da SilvaFFde PenidoCAFOPereira JuniorVLde SouzaRAVillaverdeAB. Correlação entre a dinamometria e teste funcional em atletas de handebol. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2014; 20(3): 172–5. Available from: doi: 10.1590/1517-86922014200301872.
16.
SilvaBGC. Comparação da função muscular do quadríceps femoral e isquiotibiais nos equipamentos isocinético e de resistência variada. Monografia apresentada à Escola de Educação Física da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 2009.
17.
D’AlessandroRLSilveiraEAPAnjosMTSSilvaAAFonsecaST. Análise da associação entre a dinamometria isocinética da articulação do joelho e o salto horizontal unipodal, hop test, em atletas de voleibol. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2005; 11: 5.
18.
SelistreLFACintraGCAleixo JuniorRDRosaSMMG. Relationship between extensor torque and H: Q ratio with triple hop distance in professional soccer players. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2012; 18: 6.
19.
JubanyJBusquetsAMarinaMCosFAngulo-BarrosoR. Reliability and validity of a custom-made instrument including a hand-held dynamometer for measuring trunk muscle strength. J Back Musculoskelet. 2015; 2; 28(2): 317–26. Available from: doi: 10.3233/bmr-140522.
20.
MuffGDufourSMeyerAMasatJVautraversPLecocqJ, et al. Comparative study on the assessment of the strength of the knee extensor and flexor muscles by hand-held dynamometer and isokinetic dynamometer. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2015; 58: e159–e160. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.07.379.
21.
BaltzopoulosVEstonRgMaclarenD. A comparison of power outputs on the Wingate test and on a test using an isokinetic device. Ergonomics [Internet]. Informa UK Limited; 1988 Nov; 31(11): 1693–9. Available from: doi: 10.1080/00140138808966819.
22.
AlencarTAMMatiasKFSOliveiraFB. Cinesiologia e biomecânica do ciclismo: uma revisão. Revista Movimenta. 2010; 3: 1.
23.
NobreTL. Comparação dos exercícios em cadeia cinética aberta e cadeia cinética fechada na reabilitação da disfunção femoropatelar. Fisioterapia em Movimento. 2011; 24(1): 167–72. Available from: doi: 10.1590/s0103-51502011000100019.
