# Reliability of Force-Velocity Tests in Cycling and Cranking Exercises in Men and Women

Authors: Hamdi Jaafar; Elvis Attiogbé; Majdi Rouis; Henry Vandewalle; Tarak Driss
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2015)

---

## Abstract

The present study examined the reliability of the force-velocity relationship during cycling and arm cranking exercises in active males and females. Twenty male and seventeen female physical education students performed three-session tests with legs and three-session tests with arms on a friction-loaded ergometer on six different sessions in a randomized order. The reliability of maximal power(Pmax), maximal pedal rate (V0), and maximal force (F0) were studied using the coefficient of variation (CV), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the test-retest correlation coefficient (r). Reliability indices were better for men (1.74 ≤ CV ≤ 4.36, 0.82 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.97, and 0.81 ≤ r ≤ 0.97) compared with women (2.34 ≤ CV ≤ 7.04, 0.44 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.98, and 0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.98) and in cycling exercise (1.74 ≤ CV ≤ 3.85, 0.88 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.98, and 0.90 ≤ r ≤ 0.98) compared with arm exercise (2.37 ≤ CV ≤ 7.04, 0.44 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.95, and 0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.95). Furthermore, the reliability indices were high for Pmax  and F0 whatever the expression of the results (raw data or data related to body dimensions). Pmax and F0 could be used in longitudinal physical fitness investigations. However, further studies are needed to judge V0 reliability.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Maximal anaerobic power can be measured on friction-loaded cycle ergometers or isokinetic ergometers. Many protocols have been proposed for maximal power measurement: all-out tests against a single load (e.g., the Wingate test) [1, 2], relationship between torque and pedal rate on an isokinetic ergometer [3, 4], relationship between load and peak velocity [5], and force-velocity relationship during a single all-out test against a pure inertial load [6] or inertial + braking load [7–9].On friction-loaded ergometer, maximal power corresponds to power at peak velocity or is computed during the acceleration phase taking into account the power necessary to increase the flywheel kinetic energy [10]. The relationship between pedal rate (V) and braking force (F) or torque (T) can be described by a linear relationship [3, 5–9, 11]. Linear force-velocity relationships have been described for all-out exercises performed on a cycle ergometer not only with the legs (i.e., cycling exercise) but also with the arms (i.e., cranking exercise). The individual characteristics of the force-velocity or torque-velocity relationship can be defined by two parameters: V0 (the intercept with the pedal rate axis which has the dimension of a maximal pedal rate) and F0 or T0 (the intercepts with the force or torque axis, which have the dimension of a maximal force or a maximal torque). Maximal power (Pmax⁡) corresponds to an optimal pedal rate (Vopt) equal to 0.5V0 and an optimal load or torque equal to 0.5F0 or 0.5T0.Previous studies reported thatPmax⁡ [8] or peak power during a Wingate test [12–15] are significantly correlated with the percentage of the fast muscle fibers in the vastus lateralis. Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was observed between Pmax⁡ and triceps surae musculotendinous stiffness at relative peak torque corresponding to the optimal cycling rate [16]. On the other hand, the value of Vopt during sprint cycling was significantly correlated with vastus lateralis myosin heavy chain II composition in a study comparing old and young participants [17]. The proportion of fast twitch fibres expressed in terms of cross-sectional area was highly correlated with Vopt (r=0.88, P<0.001) [18], and the authors of this latter study suggested that Vopt would be the most accurate parameter to explore the fibre composition of the knee extensor muscle from cycling tests. The value of F0 in cycling depends on the strength and the rate of force development of muscle knee extensors [19]. The Wingate optimal braking force can also be determined from the result of a cycling force-velocity test as this braking force is close to 0.5F0 [5, 20].Therefore, it could be interesting to determine the parameters of the force-velocity relationships (V0, F0, or T0) in addition to Pmax⁡ on a cycle ergometer. Furthermore, the study of the changes in power-velocity relationship during an annual training cycle has been proposed in volleyball players [21], which assumes that the results of the force-velocity tests on cycle ergometers are reliable. The reliability of the cycling all-out tests has mainly been investigated by studying either the test-retest correlation coefficients (rtest-retest) or the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or the standard errors of estimations (SEE) or the coefficients of variation (CV) for the indices of maximal power (Wingate peak power or Pmax⁡) with the different protocols [1–4, 6, 9, 22–27]. In contrast, the reliability of the parameters of the force-velocity relationship (slope, T0, F0, and V0) has been investigated in a few studies, only [4, 6, 26]. Moreover, the validity of the statistical tests in these studies on reliability was probably questionable [28].In a review on the reliability of power in physical performance tests, Hopkins et al. [29] suggested that nonathletic females might be less reliable than nonathletic males, probably because the nonathletic females may be less physically active than the nonathletic males. Similarly, cranking exercises are probably less familiar than cycling exercises and the effect of familiarisation sessions might be more important for force-velocity tests with the arms.Thus, the aim of the present study was to examine the reliability ofPmax⁡, V0, and F0 during force-velocity tests. In light of the literature observations, we hypothesized that reliability is lower in women than in men and for cranking force-velocity tests than for cycling tests.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Participants

Twenty healthy males (24.20±2.69 years, 1.80±0.06 m, and 76.48±8.93 kg) and seventeen healthy females (23.53±2.12 years, 1.68±0.06 m, and 61.18±9.58 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. The participants were all active physical education students but none of them were familiarized with sprint cycling or arm cranking before participation in the study. Before any data collection, all participants were fully informed of the possible risk and discomfort associated with the experimental procedures and gave written informed consent. The experimental protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University and carried out according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.


### 2.2. Procedures

The participants performed three session tests with the legs and three session tests with the arms on six different sessions in random order. All the tests were performed within a period of four weeks with at least 48 hours between the sessions. Participants were instructed to avoid any strenuous activity between sessions and to follow their usual diet throughout the experimental period. All tests were performed at the same time of day to minimize the effects of circadian rhythms [30] and with similar standard environmental conditions for all participants (mean temperature and humidity: 22±0.1°C and 35±0.4%, resp.). Body mass and height measures of all subjects were examined before each testing session.The participants performed a standard warm-up consisting of 5 min cycling (80 W and 50 W for men and women, resp.) before the leg tests or arm cranking (50 W and 20 W for men and women, resp.) for the arm tests, with two short accelerations (3-s) at the end of the third min and the fifth min. After 5 minutes of passive recovery, participants performed the force-velocity test which consisted of repetitive short maximal sprints of 6-s against increasing braking forces. The braking forces administrated at the beginning of the sprints cycling were 2 kg and 1.5 kg for men and women, respectively, while during arm cranking the loads were equal to 1.5 kg and 1 kg for men and women, respectively. Then, the braking force was increased after 5 min of passive recovery (sprints cycling: 2 and 1.5 kg for men and women, resp.; arm cranking: 1.5 and 1 kg for men and women, resp.) until the participant was unable to reach a peak velocity higher than 100 rpm. The same order of braking force application was respected across session tests.All force-velocity tests were performed on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer with weights (Monark 864, Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden) adjustable for both leg and arm exercises [31, 32]. During sprint cycling exercises, participants were seated on the cycle ergometer equipped with toe clips and well-fastened straps to avoid losing the pedals. The same riding position was used throughout the study. Participants were instructed to cycle in seated position to avoid the effect of postural changes [33–35]. During arm cranking exercises, the pedals were replaced with handles and the cycle ergometer was fixed on a metal frame. The participants were standing on their feet in front of the ergometer during the exercises. The center of the pedal axis was approximately 20 cm lower than the level of the shoulder axis. All sprints were performed from the same initial pedal position. Participants were encouraged by the same investigator to reach the maximal velocity rate as quickly as possible. Instantaneous pedal rate in cycling or cranking was monitored throughout a PC computer by means of an encoder placed on the cycle ergometer flywheel. Then, the velocity was averaged over 1-s intervals.The peak velocity (V) was measured for each braking force (F) and was used to calculate the linear force-velocity relationship for cycling exercises according to the least squares method:(1)V=a-bF.The above relationship was transformed as follows [33]:(2)V=V01-FF0.In this equation,V0 and F0 corresponded to the intercepts with the velocity axis and force axis, respectively (V0=a and F0=a/b). Since a linear relationship between F and V was assumed, Pmax⁡ corresponded to an optimal velocity and an optimal braking force equal to 0.5V0 and 0.5F0, respectively. Hence, Pmax⁡ was calculated as follows [5, 33]:(3)Pmax⁡=0.5V0×0.5F0=0.25V0F0.The performance variables were expressed in absolute units and according to dimensional scaling.V0 was expressed in absolute unit (rpm) and relative to body height (rpm·BH-1). F0 was expressed in absolute unit (kg) and relative to body mass raised to the power of 0.67 (kg·BM-0.67). Pmax⁡ was expressed in absolute unit (W) and relative to body mass (W·BM-1).


### 2.3. Relation between the Variabilities ofF0 and V0

The variability ofF0 and V0 between the second and first sessions (ΔF02-1 and ΔV02-1) and between the third and second sessions (ΔF03-2 and ΔV03-2) was calculated according to the following formulas:(4)ΔF02-1=100F02F01,ΔF03-2=100F03F02,ΔV02-1=100V02V01,ΔV03-2=100V03V02.


### 2.4. Statistical Analyses

Statistical procedures were carried out using Statistica 7.1 Software (StatSoft, France). Data ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ are presented as mean and standard deviation (mean ± SD). Before statistical analysis, each performance variable was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. With the assumption of normality confirmed, systematic change in performance from trials 1 to 3 was examined using one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and a Tukey’s post hoc test. All significance thresholds were set at P<0.05.Absolute reliability, which concerns the consistency of individual’s scores [36], was determined using the standard error of measurement SEM and the coefficient of variation (CV) using the following formulas [37]:(5)SEM=SDdiff2,CV%=SEMMean×100,where SDdiff was the standard deviation of the differences between consecutive session tests (i.e., sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3).Relative reliability, which concerns the consistency of individual’s position in the group relative to others [36], was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient of two-way random effects model with single measure for each pair of consecutive session tests (i.e., sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3) as follows: (6)ICC2,1=MSP-MSEMSP+MSE+2(MST-MSE)/n.In this formulaMSP represents the participant mean square, MSE represents the error mean square, k is the number of trials, MST represents the trials mean square, and n is the number of participants. The ICC is considered as high for values above 0.90, moderate for values between 0.80 and 0.90, and low for values below 0.80 [38].In addition, the test-retest correlation coefficient (rtest-retest) was calculated for each pair of consecutive session tests in order to compare the results of the present study to the data in the literature [29]. The Bland-Altman plots were used to check for heteroscedasticity [28].


## 2.1. Participants

Twenty healthy males (24.20±2.69 years, 1.80±0.06 m, and 76.48±8.93 kg) and seventeen healthy females (23.53±2.12 years, 1.68±0.06 m, and 61.18±9.58 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. The participants were all active physical education students but none of them were familiarized with sprint cycling or arm cranking before participation in the study. Before any data collection, all participants were fully informed of the possible risk and discomfort associated with the experimental procedures and gave written informed consent. The experimental protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University and carried out according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.


## 2.2. Procedures

The participants performed three session tests with the legs and three session tests with the arms on six different sessions in random order. All the tests were performed within a period of four weeks with at least 48 hours between the sessions. Participants were instructed to avoid any strenuous activity between sessions and to follow their usual diet throughout the experimental period. All tests were performed at the same time of day to minimize the effects of circadian rhythms [30] and with similar standard environmental conditions for all participants (mean temperature and humidity: 22±0.1°C and 35±0.4%, resp.). Body mass and height measures of all subjects were examined before each testing session.The participants performed a standard warm-up consisting of 5 min cycling (80 W and 50 W for men and women, resp.) before the leg tests or arm cranking (50 W and 20 W for men and women, resp.) for the arm tests, with two short accelerations (3-s) at the end of the third min and the fifth min. After 5 minutes of passive recovery, participants performed the force-velocity test which consisted of repetitive short maximal sprints of 6-s against increasing braking forces. The braking forces administrated at the beginning of the sprints cycling were 2 kg and 1.5 kg for men and women, respectively, while during arm cranking the loads were equal to 1.5 kg and 1 kg for men and women, respectively. Then, the braking force was increased after 5 min of passive recovery (sprints cycling: 2 and 1.5 kg for men and women, resp.; arm cranking: 1.5 and 1 kg for men and women, resp.) until the participant was unable to reach a peak velocity higher than 100 rpm. The same order of braking force application was respected across session tests.All force-velocity tests were performed on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer with weights (Monark 864, Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden) adjustable for both leg and arm exercises [31, 32]. During sprint cycling exercises, participants were seated on the cycle ergometer equipped with toe clips and well-fastened straps to avoid losing the pedals. The same riding position was used throughout the study. Participants were instructed to cycle in seated position to avoid the effect of postural changes [33–35]. During arm cranking exercises, the pedals were replaced with handles and the cycle ergometer was fixed on a metal frame. The participants were standing on their feet in front of the ergometer during the exercises. The center of the pedal axis was approximately 20 cm lower than the level of the shoulder axis. All sprints were performed from the same initial pedal position. Participants were encouraged by the same investigator to reach the maximal velocity rate as quickly as possible. Instantaneous pedal rate in cycling or cranking was monitored throughout a PC computer by means of an encoder placed on the cycle ergometer flywheel. Then, the velocity was averaged over 1-s intervals.The peak velocity (V) was measured for each braking force (F) and was used to calculate the linear force-velocity relationship for cycling exercises according to the least squares method:(1)V=a-bF.The above relationship was transformed as follows [33]:(2)V=V01-FF0.In this equation,V0 and F0 corresponded to the intercepts with the velocity axis and force axis, respectively (V0=a and F0=a/b). Since a linear relationship between F and V was assumed, Pmax⁡ corresponded to an optimal velocity and an optimal braking force equal to 0.5V0 and 0.5F0, respectively. Hence, Pmax⁡ was calculated as follows [5, 33]:(3)Pmax⁡=0.5V0×0.5F0=0.25V0F0.The performance variables were expressed in absolute units and according to dimensional scaling.V0 was expressed in absolute unit (rpm) and relative to body height (rpm·BH-1). F0 was expressed in absolute unit (kg) and relative to body mass raised to the power of 0.67 (kg·BM-0.67). Pmax⁡ was expressed in absolute unit (W) and relative to body mass (W·BM-1).


## 2.3. Relation between the Variabilities ofF0 and V0

The variability ofF0 and V0 between the second and first sessions (ΔF02-1 and ΔV02-1) and between the third and second sessions (ΔF03-2 and ΔV03-2) was calculated according to the following formulas:(4)ΔF02-1=100F02F01,ΔF03-2=100F03F02,ΔV02-1=100V02V01,ΔV03-2=100V03V02.


## 2.4. Statistical Analyses

Statistical procedures were carried out using Statistica 7.1 Software (StatSoft, France). Data ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ are presented as mean and standard deviation (mean ± SD). Before statistical analysis, each performance variable was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. With the assumption of normality confirmed, systematic change in performance from trials 1 to 3 was examined using one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and a Tukey’s post hoc test. All significance thresholds were set at P<0.05.Absolute reliability, which concerns the consistency of individual’s scores [36], was determined using the standard error of measurement SEM and the coefficient of variation (CV) using the following formulas [37]:(5)SEM=SDdiff2,CV%=SEMMean×100,where SDdiff was the standard deviation of the differences between consecutive session tests (i.e., sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3).Relative reliability, which concerns the consistency of individual’s position in the group relative to others [36], was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient of two-way random effects model with single measure for each pair of consecutive session tests (i.e., sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3) as follows: (6)ICC2,1=MSP-MSEMSP+MSE+2(MST-MSE)/n.In this formulaMSP represents the participant mean square, MSE represents the error mean square, k is the number of trials, MST represents the trials mean square, and n is the number of participants. The ICC is considered as high for values above 0.90, moderate for values between 0.80 and 0.90, and low for values below 0.80 [38].In addition, the test-retest correlation coefficient (rtest-retest) was calculated for each pair of consecutive session tests in order to compare the results of the present study to the data in the literature [29]. The Bland-Altman plots were used to check for heteroscedasticity [28].


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Variations in Body Mass (BM)

For the arm tests, the differences in BM between the sessions were equal to-0.08±0.754 (ΔS2-S1), 0.305±0.669 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.225±0.916 kg (ΔS3-S1) in men and 0.129±0.512 (ΔS2-S1), 0.006±0.553 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.124±0.529 kg (ΔS3-S1) in women.For the leg tests, the differences in BM between the sessions were equal to0.090±0.704 (ΔS2-S1), 0.255±0.737 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.345±0.944 kg (ΔS3-S1) in men and 0.288±0.499 (ΔS2-S1), -0.206±0.536 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.08±0.591 kg (ΔS3-S1) in women.


### 3.2.V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ in the Three Sessions

The individual values ofF0 and V0 measured in the three sessions are presented in Figure 1. The branches of hyperbolae (i.e., continuous and dashed curves) in Figure 1 correspond to the participants with different combinations of F0 and V0 but the same value of Pmax⁡. The means ± SD and ranges of Pmax⁡, F0, V0, Pmax⁡·BM-1, F0·BM-1, F0·BM-0.67, and V0·BH-1 measured in the different sessions are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2. In Table 1 and Figure 1, BM corresponded to the body mass measured during each session whereas BM was equal to the average of the three measures of BM in Figure 2.Table 1
ParametersPmax⁡, F0, and V0 (means, SD, and range) computed from the force-velocity tests performed with legs or arms by men in sessions 1, 2, and 3.
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Legs
V
0
rpm
223 ± 14 (196–241)
230 ± 12 (208–251)
228 ± 13 (205–242)
rpm·BH−1
1.24 ± 0.09 (1.08–1.38)
1.28 ± 0.08 (1.11–1.43)
1.27 ± 0.08 (1.14–1.45)
F
0
kg
19.8 ± 2.9 (14.9–25.1)
19.3 ± 3.0 (13.7–24.1)
19.7 ± 3.3 (13.9–25.9)
kg·BM−1
0.26 ± 0.03 (0.21–0.32)
0.25 ± 0.03 (0.21–0.31)
0.26 ± 0.03 (0.22–0.31)
kg·BM−0.67
1.09 ± 0.12 (0.89–1.30)
1.06 ± 0.13 (0.88–1.29)
1.07 ± 0.13 (0.88–1.33)
P
max
⁡
W
1105 ± 174 (871–1423)
1107 ± 173 (844–1387)
1122 ± 182 (865–1451)
W·BM−1
14.5 ± 1.8 (11.4–17.7)
14.5 ± 1.6 (11.4–17.6)
14.6 ± 1.5 (11.8–17.8)
Arms
V
0
rpm
237 ± 12 (213–259)
243 ± 14 (219–269)
242 ± 17 (211–279)
rpm·BH−1
1.32 ± 0.08 (1.21–1.46)
1.35 ± 0.08 (1.24–1.48)
1.35 ± 0.09 (1.20–1.52)
F
0
Kg
13.1 ± 1.9 (10.2–17.8)
12.9 ± 1.7 (10.0–17.0)
13.1 ± 1.7 (10.7–16.6)
kg·BM−1
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.14–0.21)
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.13–0.20)
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.14–0.21)
kg·BM−0.67
0.71 ± 0.08 (0.57–0.86)
0.70 ± 0.07 (0.55–0.81)
0.71 ± 0.07 (0.60–0.86)
P
max
⁡
W
777 ± 136 (620–1077)
781 ± 122 (615–1039)
792 ± 123 (660–1061)
W·BM−1
10.1 ± 1.2 (8.2–12.1)
10.2 ± 1.1 (8.2–12.3)
10.3 ± 1.1 (8.4–12.0)Table 2
ParametersPmax⁡, F0, and V0 (means, SD, and range) computed from the force-velocity tests performed with legs or arms by women in sessions 1, 2, and 3.
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Legs
V
0
rpm
200 ± 12 (179–215)
203 ± 15 (171–223)
203 ± 13 (176–221)
rpm·BH−1
1.19 ± 0.09 (1.00–1.35)
1.21 ± 0.10 (1.04–1.36)
1.21 ± 0.09 (1.00–1.32)
F
0
kg
13.3 ± 2.6 (9.8–17.9)
12.9 ± 2.4 (9.2–18.1)
13.2 ± 2.3 (9.5–17.5)
kg·BM−1
0.22 ± 0.02 (0.19–0.25)
0.21 ± 0.02 (0.16–0.26)
0.21 ± 0.02 (0.19–0.25)
kg·BM−0.67
0.84 ± 0.09 (0.69–1.01)
0.82 ± 0.10 (0.69–1.01)
0.83 ± 0.09 (0.69–0.99)
P
max
⁡
W
662 ± 130 (430–907)
655 ± 136 (428–914)
668 ± 131 (443–893)
W·BM−1
10.8 ± 1.1 (8.3–12.4)
10.7 ± 1.4 (7.5–12.9)
10.9 ± 1.3 (8.4–13.3)
Arms
V
0
rpm
203 ± 17 (170–237)
210 ± 16 (174–242)
209 ± 16 (183–244)
rpm·BH−1
1.21 ± 0.11 (1.03–1.37)
1.25 ± 0.10 (1.07–1.41)
1.25 ± 0.10 (1.41–1.10)
F
0
kg
7.4 ± 1.0 (5.6–9.0)
7.3 ± 0.8 (6.0–8.5)
7.3 ± 1.0 (5.4–8.7)
kg·BM−1
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.10–0.14)
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.09–0.15)
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.09–0.14)
kg·BM−0.67
0.47 ± 0.04 (0.39–0.54)
0.47 ± 0.04 (0.38–0.55)
0.46 ± 0.05 (0.38–0.54)
P
max
⁡
W
375 ± 61 (237–466)
386 ± 59 (276–491)
380 ± 63 (257–482)
W·BM−1
6.2 ± 0.8 (4.6–7.7)
6.4 ± 0.8 (5.1–7.6)
6.3 ± 0.9 (4.9–7.7)Figure 1
Individual values ofV0 and F0 corresponding to the force-velocity relationships in cycling (a) and cranking (b) at the first (empty symbols), second (grey symbols), and third (black symbols) trials. The three values of each participant are linked by broken lines. Circles and triangles correspond to men and women, respectively.
(a)
(b)Figure 2
Results of the force-velocity tests (means ± SD) in the three sessions related to body dimensions (F0 related to BM and BM−0.67, V0 related to BH, and Pmax⁡ related to BM). Black points, exercises performed with the legs; empty circle, exercises performed with the arms.All the differences between men and women were highly significant (P<0.001) even when the data were related to body mass (Pmax⁡·BM-1, F0·BM-1, and F0·BM-0.67). The significance level of the difference in V0·BH-1 between men and women was equal to P<0.05, only.


### 3.3. Reliability

The one-way ANOVA with repeated measure showed a significant main effect of trial onV0 in men (F(2,38)=11.48, P<0.001 and F(2,38)=6.93, P<0.01, for cycling and cranking, resp.) and women (F(2,32)=4.55, P<0.05 and F(2,32)=6.10, P<0.01, for cycling and cranking, resp.). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that V0 at session 1 was significantly lower by comparison to sessions 2 and 3. In contrast, there was no significant main effect of sessions on F0 and Pmax⁡ for arms and legs in men and women (P>0.05).The CV (%) ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The highest CV values were obtained for F0 by comparison with V0 and Pmax⁡. The greatest CV values were observed for cranking exercises in female participants.Table 3
Differences between sessions 1 and 2; coefficients of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and test-retest correlation coefficients (rtest-retest) for V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ for the leg or arm force-velocity tests in men and women.
Men
Women
Legs
Arms
Legs
Arms
SEM
V
0
rpm
4.28
5.30
5.80
6.67
rpm·BH−1
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
F
0
kg
0.59
0.48
0.73
0.58
kg·BM−0.67
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.04
P
max
⁡
W
29.10
24.9
24.5
21.7
W·BM−1
0.38
0.32
0.41
0.35
CV (%)
V
0
rpm
1.89
2.21
2.88
3.23
rpm·BH−1
1.89
2.25
2.90
3.23
F
0
kg
3.01
3.69
5.60
7.84
kg·BM−0.67
2.95
3.75
5.50
7.52
P
max
⁡
W
2.63
3.19
3.71
5.69
W·BM−1
2.61
3.18
3.83
5.60
ICC
V
0
rpm
0.79
0.75
0.80
0.78
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.78
0.85
0.80
F
0
kg
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.60
kg·BM−0.67
0.91
0.86
0.77
0.25
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.86
W·BM−1
0.95
0.93
0.90
0.79
r
test-retest
V
0
rpm
0.89
0.84
0.82
0.84
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.85
0.86
0.85
F
0
kg
0.96
0.94
0.91
0.60
kg·BM−0.67
0.94
0.87
0.79
0.24
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.87
W·BM−1
0.95
0.93
0.92
0.80Table 4
Differences between sessions 2 and 3; coefficients of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and test-retest correlation coefficients (rtest-retest) for V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ for the leg or arm force-velocity tests in men and women.
Men
Women
Legs
Arms
Legs
Arms
SEM
V
0
rpm
3.97
5.74
4.76
6.01
rpm·BH−1
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
F
0
kg
0.65
0.56
0.50
0.51
kg·BM−0.67
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
P
max
⁡
W
29.8
26.3
19.1
20.6
W·BM−1
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.33
CV
V
0
rpm
1.74
2.37
2.35
2.87
rpm·BH−1
1.74
2.37
2.34
2.91
F
0
kg
3.34
4.36
3.85
7.01
kg·BM−0.67
3.26
4.21
3.56
7.04
P
max
⁡
W
2.67
3.35
2.88
5.37
W·BM−1
2.63
3.16
2.50
5.17
ICC
V
0
rpm
0.90
0.87
0.88
0.86
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.87
0.91
0.87
F
0
kg
0.95
0.89
0.95
0.69
kg·BM−0.67
0.92
0.82
0.90
0.44
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.89
W·BM−1
0.94
0.92
0.95
0.85
r
test-retest
V
0
rpm
0.90
0.88
0.89
0.86
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.88
0.91
0.86
F
0
kg
0.96
0.89
0.96
0.70
kg·BM−0.67
0.92
0.81
0.92
0.44
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.89
W·BM−1
0.94
0.92
0.97
0.85The values ofrtest-retest are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The values of rtest-retest increased for the correlations between sessions 2 and 3 when compared with the correlations between sessions 1 and 2. Except F0 with the arms in women, the lowest rtest-retest were observed for V0.For the correlations between the results of the first and second sessions, the values ofrtest-retest for F0 were significantly different between cycling and cranking but in the female group, only (P=0.030 for F0; P=0.036 for F0 related to BM−0.67). Similarly, the values of rtest-retest between the first and second sessions were significantly different between male and female groups for F0 and Pmax⁡ (P=0.007 for F0, P=0.005 for F0 related to BM−0.67, and P=0.047 for Pmax⁡ in watts). For the correlations between the results of the second and third sessions, the values of rtest-retest for F0 and Pmax⁡ were significantly different between cycling and cranking but in the female group, only (P=0.01 for F0; P=0.006 for F0 related to BM−0.67 and P=0.023 for Pmax⁡ in watts). All the other comparisons of rtest-retest between men and women or cycling and cranking were not significantly different.The ICC of each performance variable across sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3 in male and female participants are presented in Tables3 and 4. The values of ICC improved for sessions 2 and 3 by comparison with sessions 1 and 2. Excepting F0 with the arms in female participants, the lowest ICC values were observed for V0.


### 3.4. Relation between the Variabilities ofF0 and V0

The variability ofF0 (ΔF02-1 or ΔF03-2) was significantly correlated with the variability of V0 (ΔV02-1 or ΔV03-2) as shown in Figure 3:in women:(7)ΔF0arms2-1=263-1.57ΔV0arms2-1,r=0.695;P=0.002,ΔF0arms3-2=274-1.76ΔV0arms3-2,r=0.742;P<0.001,ΔF0legs2-1=235-1.36ΔV0legs2-1,r=0.773;P<0.001,ΔF0legs3-2=215-1.12ΔV0legs3-2,r=0.644;P=0.005,in men:(8)ΔF0arms2-1=184-0.83ΔV0arms2-1,r=0.503;P=0.024,ΔF0arms3-2=219-1.17ΔV0arms3-2,r=0.624;P=0.003,ΔF0legs2-1=184-0.83ΔV0legs2-1,r=0.503;P=0.024,ΔF0legs3-2=219-1.17ΔV0legs3-2,r=0.624;P=0.003.Figure 3
Relationships between intersession differences inF0 (ordinates) and intersession differences in V0 (abscissae) for the leg and arm force-velocity tests in men and women. Continuous lines and black points: differences between the first and second sessions. Dashed line and empty circles: differences between the second and third sessions.


## 3.1. Variations in Body Mass (BM)

For the arm tests, the differences in BM between the sessions were equal to-0.08±0.754 (ΔS2-S1), 0.305±0.669 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.225±0.916 kg (ΔS3-S1) in men and 0.129±0.512 (ΔS2-S1), 0.006±0.553 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.124±0.529 kg (ΔS3-S1) in women.For the leg tests, the differences in BM between the sessions were equal to0.090±0.704 (ΔS2-S1), 0.255±0.737 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.345±0.944 kg (ΔS3-S1) in men and 0.288±0.499 (ΔS2-S1), -0.206±0.536 (ΔS3-S2), and 0.08±0.591 kg (ΔS3-S1) in women.


## 3.2.V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ in the Three Sessions

The individual values ofF0 and V0 measured in the three sessions are presented in Figure 1. The branches of hyperbolae (i.e., continuous and dashed curves) in Figure 1 correspond to the participants with different combinations of F0 and V0 but the same value of Pmax⁡. The means ± SD and ranges of Pmax⁡, F0, V0, Pmax⁡·BM-1, F0·BM-1, F0·BM-0.67, and V0·BH-1 measured in the different sessions are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2. In Table 1 and Figure 1, BM corresponded to the body mass measured during each session whereas BM was equal to the average of the three measures of BM in Figure 2.Table 1
ParametersPmax⁡, F0, and V0 (means, SD, and range) computed from the force-velocity tests performed with legs or arms by men in sessions 1, 2, and 3.
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Legs
V
0
rpm
223 ± 14 (196–241)
230 ± 12 (208–251)
228 ± 13 (205–242)
rpm·BH−1
1.24 ± 0.09 (1.08–1.38)
1.28 ± 0.08 (1.11–1.43)
1.27 ± 0.08 (1.14–1.45)
F
0
kg
19.8 ± 2.9 (14.9–25.1)
19.3 ± 3.0 (13.7–24.1)
19.7 ± 3.3 (13.9–25.9)
kg·BM−1
0.26 ± 0.03 (0.21–0.32)
0.25 ± 0.03 (0.21–0.31)
0.26 ± 0.03 (0.22–0.31)
kg·BM−0.67
1.09 ± 0.12 (0.89–1.30)
1.06 ± 0.13 (0.88–1.29)
1.07 ± 0.13 (0.88–1.33)
P
max
⁡
W
1105 ± 174 (871–1423)
1107 ± 173 (844–1387)
1122 ± 182 (865–1451)
W·BM−1
14.5 ± 1.8 (11.4–17.7)
14.5 ± 1.6 (11.4–17.6)
14.6 ± 1.5 (11.8–17.8)
Arms
V
0
rpm
237 ± 12 (213–259)
243 ± 14 (219–269)
242 ± 17 (211–279)
rpm·BH−1
1.32 ± 0.08 (1.21–1.46)
1.35 ± 0.08 (1.24–1.48)
1.35 ± 0.09 (1.20–1.52)
F
0
Kg
13.1 ± 1.9 (10.2–17.8)
12.9 ± 1.7 (10.0–17.0)
13.1 ± 1.7 (10.7–16.6)
kg·BM−1
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.14–0.21)
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.13–0.20)
0.17 ± 0.02 (0.14–0.21)
kg·BM−0.67
0.71 ± 0.08 (0.57–0.86)
0.70 ± 0.07 (0.55–0.81)
0.71 ± 0.07 (0.60–0.86)
P
max
⁡
W
777 ± 136 (620–1077)
781 ± 122 (615–1039)
792 ± 123 (660–1061)
W·BM−1
10.1 ± 1.2 (8.2–12.1)
10.2 ± 1.1 (8.2–12.3)
10.3 ± 1.1 (8.4–12.0)Table 2
ParametersPmax⁡, F0, and V0 (means, SD, and range) computed from the force-velocity tests performed with legs or arms by women in sessions 1, 2, and 3.
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Legs
V
0
rpm
200 ± 12 (179–215)
203 ± 15 (171–223)
203 ± 13 (176–221)
rpm·BH−1
1.19 ± 0.09 (1.00–1.35)
1.21 ± 0.10 (1.04–1.36)
1.21 ± 0.09 (1.00–1.32)
F
0
kg
13.3 ± 2.6 (9.8–17.9)
12.9 ± 2.4 (9.2–18.1)
13.2 ± 2.3 (9.5–17.5)
kg·BM−1
0.22 ± 0.02 (0.19–0.25)
0.21 ± 0.02 (0.16–0.26)
0.21 ± 0.02 (0.19–0.25)
kg·BM−0.67
0.84 ± 0.09 (0.69–1.01)
0.82 ± 0.10 (0.69–1.01)
0.83 ± 0.09 (0.69–0.99)
P
max
⁡
W
662 ± 130 (430–907)
655 ± 136 (428–914)
668 ± 131 (443–893)
W·BM−1
10.8 ± 1.1 (8.3–12.4)
10.7 ± 1.4 (7.5–12.9)
10.9 ± 1.3 (8.4–13.3)
Arms
V
0
rpm
203 ± 17 (170–237)
210 ± 16 (174–242)
209 ± 16 (183–244)
rpm·BH−1
1.21 ± 0.11 (1.03–1.37)
1.25 ± 0.10 (1.07–1.41)
1.25 ± 0.10 (1.41–1.10)
F
0
kg
7.4 ± 1.0 (5.6–9.0)
7.3 ± 0.8 (6.0–8.5)
7.3 ± 1.0 (5.4–8.7)
kg·BM−1
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.10–0.14)
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.09–0.15)
0.12 ± 0.01 (0.09–0.14)
kg·BM−0.67
0.47 ± 0.04 (0.39–0.54)
0.47 ± 0.04 (0.38–0.55)
0.46 ± 0.05 (0.38–0.54)
P
max
⁡
W
375 ± 61 (237–466)
386 ± 59 (276–491)
380 ± 63 (257–482)
W·BM−1
6.2 ± 0.8 (4.6–7.7)
6.4 ± 0.8 (5.1–7.6)
6.3 ± 0.9 (4.9–7.7)Figure 1
Individual values ofV0 and F0 corresponding to the force-velocity relationships in cycling (a) and cranking (b) at the first (empty symbols), second (grey symbols), and third (black symbols) trials. The three values of each participant are linked by broken lines. Circles and triangles correspond to men and women, respectively.
(a)
(b)Figure 2
Results of the force-velocity tests (means ± SD) in the three sessions related to body dimensions (F0 related to BM and BM−0.67, V0 related to BH, and Pmax⁡ related to BM). Black points, exercises performed with the legs; empty circle, exercises performed with the arms.All the differences between men and women were highly significant (P<0.001) even when the data were related to body mass (Pmax⁡·BM-1, F0·BM-1, and F0·BM-0.67). The significance level of the difference in V0·BH-1 between men and women was equal to P<0.05, only.


## 3.3. Reliability

The one-way ANOVA with repeated measure showed a significant main effect of trial onV0 in men (F(2,38)=11.48, P<0.001 and F(2,38)=6.93, P<0.01, for cycling and cranking, resp.) and women (F(2,32)=4.55, P<0.05 and F(2,32)=6.10, P<0.01, for cycling and cranking, resp.). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that V0 at session 1 was significantly lower by comparison to sessions 2 and 3. In contrast, there was no significant main effect of sessions on F0 and Pmax⁡ for arms and legs in men and women (P>0.05).The CV (%) ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The highest CV values were obtained for F0 by comparison with V0 and Pmax⁡. The greatest CV values were observed for cranking exercises in female participants.Table 3
Differences between sessions 1 and 2; coefficients of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and test-retest correlation coefficients (rtest-retest) for V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ for the leg or arm force-velocity tests in men and women.
Men
Women
Legs
Arms
Legs
Arms
SEM
V
0
rpm
4.28
5.30
5.80
6.67
rpm·BH−1
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
F
0
kg
0.59
0.48
0.73
0.58
kg·BM−0.67
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.04
P
max
⁡
W
29.10
24.9
24.5
21.7
W·BM−1
0.38
0.32
0.41
0.35
CV (%)
V
0
rpm
1.89
2.21
2.88
3.23
rpm·BH−1
1.89
2.25
2.90
3.23
F
0
kg
3.01
3.69
5.60
7.84
kg·BM−0.67
2.95
3.75
5.50
7.52
P
max
⁡
W
2.63
3.19
3.71
5.69
W·BM−1
2.61
3.18
3.83
5.60
ICC
V
0
rpm
0.79
0.75
0.80
0.78
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.78
0.85
0.80
F
0
kg
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.60
kg·BM−0.67
0.91
0.86
0.77
0.25
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.86
W·BM−1
0.95
0.93
0.90
0.79
r
test-retest
V
0
rpm
0.89
0.84
0.82
0.84
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.85
0.86
0.85
F
0
kg
0.96
0.94
0.91
0.60
kg·BM−0.67
0.94
0.87
0.79
0.24
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.87
W·BM−1
0.95
0.93
0.92
0.80Table 4
Differences between sessions 2 and 3; coefficients of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and test-retest correlation coefficients (rtest-retest) for V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ for the leg or arm force-velocity tests in men and women.
Men
Women
Legs
Arms
Legs
Arms
SEM
V
0
rpm
3.97
5.74
4.76
6.01
rpm·BH−1
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
F
0
kg
0.65
0.56
0.50
0.51
kg·BM−0.67
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
P
max
⁡
W
29.8
26.3
19.1
20.6
W·BM−1
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.33
CV
V
0
rpm
1.74
2.37
2.35
2.87
rpm·BH−1
1.74
2.37
2.34
2.91
F
0
kg
3.34
4.36
3.85
7.01
kg·BM−0.67
3.26
4.21
3.56
7.04
P
max
⁡
W
2.67
3.35
2.88
5.37
W·BM−1
2.63
3.16
2.50
5.17
ICC
V
0
rpm
0.90
0.87
0.88
0.86
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.87
0.91
0.87
F
0
kg
0.95
0.89
0.95
0.69
kg·BM−0.67
0.92
0.82
0.90
0.44
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.89
W·BM−1
0.94
0.92
0.95
0.85
r
test-retest
V
0
rpm
0.90
0.88
0.89
0.86
rpm·BH−1
0.93
0.88
0.91
0.86
F
0
kg
0.96
0.89
0.96
0.70
kg·BM−0.67
0.92
0.81
0.92
0.44
P
max
⁡
W
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.89
W·BM−1
0.94
0.92
0.97
0.85The values ofrtest-retest are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The values of rtest-retest increased for the correlations between sessions 2 and 3 when compared with the correlations between sessions 1 and 2. Except F0 with the arms in women, the lowest rtest-retest were observed for V0.For the correlations between the results of the first and second sessions, the values ofrtest-retest for F0 were significantly different between cycling and cranking but in the female group, only (P=0.030 for F0; P=0.036 for F0 related to BM−0.67). Similarly, the values of rtest-retest between the first and second sessions were significantly different between male and female groups for F0 and Pmax⁡ (P=0.007 for F0, P=0.005 for F0 related to BM−0.67, and P=0.047 for Pmax⁡ in watts). For the correlations between the results of the second and third sessions, the values of rtest-retest for F0 and Pmax⁡ were significantly different between cycling and cranking but in the female group, only (P=0.01 for F0; P=0.006 for F0 related to BM−0.67 and P=0.023 for Pmax⁡ in watts). All the other comparisons of rtest-retest between men and women or cycling and cranking were not significantly different.The ICC of each performance variable across sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 2 and 3 in male and female participants are presented in Tables3 and 4. The values of ICC improved for sessions 2 and 3 by comparison with sessions 1 and 2. Excepting F0 with the arms in female participants, the lowest ICC values were observed for V0.


## 3.4. Relation between the Variabilities ofF0 and V0

The variability ofF0 (ΔF02-1 or ΔF03-2) was significantly correlated with the variability of V0 (ΔV02-1 or ΔV03-2) as shown in Figure 3:in women:(7)ΔF0arms2-1=263-1.57ΔV0arms2-1,r=0.695;P=0.002,ΔF0arms3-2=274-1.76ΔV0arms3-2,r=0.742;P<0.001,ΔF0legs2-1=235-1.36ΔV0legs2-1,r=0.773;P<0.001,ΔF0legs3-2=215-1.12ΔV0legs3-2,r=0.644;P=0.005,in men:(8)ΔF0arms2-1=184-0.83ΔV0arms2-1,r=0.503;P=0.024,ΔF0arms3-2=219-1.17ΔV0arms3-2,r=0.624;P=0.003,ΔF0legs2-1=184-0.83ΔV0legs2-1,r=0.503;P=0.024,ΔF0legs3-2=219-1.17ΔV0legs3-2,r=0.624;P=0.003.Figure 3
Relationships between intersession differences inF0 (ordinates) and intersession differences in V0 (abscissae) for the leg and arm force-velocity tests in men and women. Continuous lines and black points: differences between the first and second sessions. Dashed line and empty circles: differences between the second and third sessions.


## 4. Discussion

In the present investigation, we studied the reliability ofPmax⁡, V0, and F0 during cycling and arm cranking exercises in active men and women. In order to study the reliability of these parameters, force-velocity tests on cycle ergometer were separately repeated three times in different sessions for each exercise. It was assumed that reliability was lower (1) in women than in men and (2) for cranking force-velocity tests than for cycling tests. The results of the present study were in agreement with this hypothesis: the reliability indices were better for the men and the leg indices when compared with the women and arm indices (Tables 3 and 4). Whatever the force-velocity parameter (V0, F0, and Pmax⁡), familiarisation sessions might be more important for women and arm tests as indicated by the lower values of CV in men and leg tests when the results of the first and second sessions were compared (Table 3).The reliability ofPmax⁡ was similar to the reliability of the different indices of maximal power in previous studies. For example, the reliability of the results of the Wingate is good for the peak power (rtest-retest>0.90) and the mean power (rtest-retest between 0.91 and 0.93) [1, 2, 22], in contrast with the reliability of the fatigue index (rtest-retest=0.43). Similarly, the reliability of the power indices measured with the different force-velocity protocols was high when measured with isokinetic cycle ergometers [3, 4, 9], friction-loaded ergometers [23, 24, 26], or the inertial load method [6, 25]. In a study by Winter et al. [23], the maximal power computed during the acceleration phase (PPcorr) estimated according to Lakomy [10] was 10% higher than Pmax⁡ but the reliability of PPcorr was lower (rtest-retest: 0.530 for PPcorr versus 0.972 for Pmax⁡ in men, and 0.922 for PPcorr versus 0.952 for Pmax⁡ in women). In the same study of Winter et al. [23], the CV values of PPcorr were higher in men (6.9% for PPcorr versus 2.7% for Pmax⁡) but not in women (3.7% for PPcorr versus 4.2% for Pmax⁡). Furthemore, according to Winter et al. [23], these results of optimization procedures (i.e., the method of Vandewalle et al. [5]) add further support and have securer fundations than those enjoyed by correction procedures [10]. For arm exercises, Smith et al. [39] reported CV values of 4.5% for PPcorr and 2.8% for Pmax⁡. It is likely that the lower reliability of PPcorr is explained by oscillations of Pcorr (product of V and Fcorr that takes into account not only the braking force but also the force necessary for the flywheel acceleration). On isokinetic cycle ergometers, the coefficients of variation of the slope and intercept of the regression between torque and pedal rate were 13.7 and 10.5%, respectively [4].The values of CV ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ in the present study were similar to the values of CV for the different parameters measured with the inertial method (4 trials on the same day): 3.3% for PPcorr, 2.7% for V0, and 4.4% for T0 [6]. For friction-loaded ergometers, the reliability of the force-velocity parameters in cycling has been tested in male physical education students [26]. For F0 and Pmax⁡, SEE was lower than 5% and rtest-retest or ICC were higher than 0.90 as in the present study for the cycling force-velocity test in the male participants. However, the comparison and the validity of the reliability indices must take into account the characteristics of the data [28, 37]. The data are said to be homoscedastic when the random error does not depend on the size of the measured value. Homoscedastic errors are generally expressed in the same units as those of their measurements and they can be analysed with conventional parametric analyses. SEM is valid when the data are homoscedastic. The data are said to be heteroscedastic when the random error increases as the measured values increase. Heteroscedastic data should be measured on a ratio scale (e.g., percentage) and be investigated with an analysis based on nonparametric analyses (i.e., rank tests). CV is valid even when the data are heteroscedastic. The heterogeneity of values between participants influences the results of the reliability tests.(1)
The coefficient of correlation of test-retest (rtest-retest) is sensitive to the heterogeneity of data between participants.(2)
The effect of heteroscedascity on the observed “errors” in a test-retest is low when the data range is narrow.The spread of the data between participants is different forV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ expressed in percentage of the group averages even when they are related to body dimension (Table 5). Heteroscedasticity was expected for V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ raw data. However, this expectation was not confirmed with Bland-Altman plots of these data, especially in men (Figure 4). The data ranges of parameters V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ were lower than 62% in men (Table 5), which could partly explain that heteroscedascity was not suggested by the Bland-Altman plots of V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ raw data (Figure 4). In women, the data ranges were larger than in men when the ranges were expressed as percentages of the means (Table 5) but the correlations of the absolute values of the differences versus the means of the results in the first and second sessions (Figure 5) were not significant. All other things being equal, the differences between sessions are probably lower in well-motivated individuals and experts in cycling and the average of their performances in sessions 1 and 2 should be higher (and inversely for the nonexperts and not motivated individuals). Therefore, the effects of motivation and expertise can alter the results of the Bland-Altman plot in this kind of physical tests.Table 5
Ranges of parametersV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ expressed in percentage of the means of the male or female groups.
Men
Women
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Legs
V
0
20.5
18.9
20.4
17.9
25.9
22.6
V
0·BH−1
24.7
25.2
24.1
28.9
26.4
27.0
F
0
51.5
54.0
61.0
61.0
68.9
61.0
F
0·BM−0.67
38.1
38.6
41.8
37.7
43.6
35.9
P
max
⁡
50.0
49.0
52.3
70.5
74.1
67.3
P
max
⁡·BM−1
43.5
42.4
40.9
37.7
51.0
45.3
Arms
V
0
19.4
20.6
27.7
32.9
32.5
29.1
V
0·BH−1
19.5
18.0
24.5
27.9
27.6
24.6
F
0
57.6
54.3
45.3
46.4
34.7
45.8
F
0·BM−0.67
40.9
37.0
37.1
30.6
36.7
33.8
P
max
⁡
58.8
54.4
50.7
61.1
55.7
59.1
P
max
⁡·BM−1
37.7
40.1
35.9
51.0
39.9
45.1Figure 4
Bland and Altman plots of the results of differences in parametersPmax⁡, V0, and F0 ((a) raw data; (b) data related to body dimensions) between sessions 1 and 2, in men (black points and continuous lines) and women (empty circles and dashed lines).
(a)
(b)Figure 5
Plot of the absolute differences between the results of sessions 1 and 2 (ordinates) and the individual means (abscissae) forPmax⁡ (a) and F0 (b) in women.
(a)
(b)As in the study by Attiogbé et al. [26], the values of rtest-retest and ICC were lower for V0 than for F0 and Pmax⁡, which can be partly explained by the smaller variance of this parameter. Indeed, the range of V0 is smaller (Table 5) than the range of F0 and Pmax⁡. The small variance of V0 in the present study is probably an expression of the small variance of V0 when compared with the variances of F0 and Pmax⁡ in a general athletic population [35]. The small range of V0 also probably explains that the values of CV in men and women were lower for V0 than for F0 and Pmax⁡ in the cycling as well as the cranking force-velocity tests. Excepting the study by Buśko [21], there is no data about the changes in V0 during an annual training cycle and, therefore, it is difficult to know whether its reliability is good enough for the estimation of the training effect on this parameter.The ranges ofF0 and Pmax⁡ were similar but the values of rtest-retest or ICC were higher for Pmax⁡ than for F0 (and V0). It is likely that the variations in V0 and F0 between sessions are not totally independent (Figure 3). Indeed, the values of V0 and F0 are extrapolated from the relationship between braking force and peak velocity. An underestimation of the peak velocity corresponding to the highest braking force induces a rotation of the F-V regression line (i.e., a more negative slope) and, consequently, an overestimation of V0 in addition to an underestimation of F0. Inversely, an underestimation of the peak velocity corresponding to the lowest braking force induces a less negative slope of the F-V regression line and, consequently, and overestimation of F0 in addition to an underestimation of V0. The value of Pmax⁡ depends on F0 and V0 and the effect of an underestimation of V0 on Pmax⁡ should be compensated by the effect of an overestimation of F0, andvice versa. This could partly explain why the values of rtest-retest, ICC, or CV were better for Pmax⁡ than for F0.The values ofV0, F0, and Pmax⁡ were lower in women than in men. The differences in BH and BM were not the only explanations of the lower values of V0, F0, and Pmax⁡ in women. Indeed, these differences were still significant when force-velocity parameters were related to BH or BM (V0·BH-1, F0·BM-0.67, and Pmax⁡·BM-1). This gender effect could partly be explained by a difference in muscle fiber composition as, for example, the higher percentage of the cross-sectional area that corresponds to the slow fibers in women [40–42]. The lower values of F0·BM-0.67, F0·BM-1, and Pmax⁡·BM-1 might partly be explained by a lower percentage of lean body mass in women. The lower values of rtest-retest in women cannot be explained by a lower range of the individual data (Table 5). The lower reliability in women might partly be explained by the effect of menstrual cycle, but it is possible that this effect is less important in trained women because training might reduce the cyclical hormonal fluctuations [29].The variability ofF0 and Pmax⁡ depends on the variability of BM when these data are related to body mass (F0·BM-1, F0·BM-0.67, and Pmax⁡·BM-1). In spite of the instructions about diet, hydration, and training, the standard deviations of the differences in BM between the sessions were not negligible (<1.25% of BM).


## 5. Methodological Considerations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining the reliability of force-velocity tests on cycle ergometer during sprint cycling and arm cranking exercises in active men and women. One of the limitations inherent to the experimental protocol in the present study is that the crank length was the same for all participants. The usual crank length is probably higher than the optimal length in small participants, which could partially explain the lower reliability in women. Therefore, familiarization sessions are required in small participants.


## 6. Conclusion

The present study showed high reliability ofPmax⁡ and F0, allowing the use of these parameters in longitudinal evaluations. Furthermore, the reliability of Pmax⁡ was better than that of F0 whatever the expression of the results (expressed in absolute unit or data related to body dimension). The reliability indices were also better in men and cycling force-velocity tests than in women and cranking force-velocity tests. Further studies are needed to judge the reliability of V0.



---

*Source: 954780-2015-10-11.xml*