Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

2004, 18(4), 878-884 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association

T H E IMPORTANCE OF ISOMETRIC MAXIMUM STRENGTH AND PEAK RATE-OF-FORCE DEVELOPMENT IN SPRINT CYCLING
MICHAEL H . STONE,'=^ WILLIAM A. SANDS,' J O N CARLOCK,' SAM CALLAN,=' D E S DICKIE/* KAREN DAIGLE,' JOHN COTTON,' SARAH L . SMITH,' AND MICHAEL HARTMAN'

'Sports Science, United States Olympic Committee, Colorado Springt;, Colorado 80909; -School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia; 'USA Cycling, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Stone, M.H., W.A. Sands, J. Carlock, S. Callan, D. Dickie. K. Daigle. J. Cotton, S.L. Smith, and M. Hartman. The importance of" isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of(brce development in sprint cycling. J. Strength Cond. Rea. 18(4): 000-000. 200'i.This study was designed to investigate the relation.ship of whole-body maximum strength to variables potentially associated with track sprint-cycling success. These variables included body composition, power measures, coach's rank, and sprint-cycling times. The study was can-ied out in 2 parts. The first part in - 30) served as a pilot for the second pail ( = 201. Subjects (or both parts ranged from international-caliber sprint cyclists to local-level cyclists. Maximum strength wa.s measured using an isometric midthigh pull in*F). Explosive strength was measured as the peak raLe-of-force development (IPRFD) from the isometric force-time curve. Peak power was estimated from countermovement (CMJPP) and static vertical jumps (SJPP) and measured by modified Wingate tests. Athletes were ranked by the U.S. natitmal cycling coach (part 1). Sprint times (from a standing start) were measured using timing gates placed at 25, S2.5, 165, 247.5, and ;]30 m of an outdoor velodrome (part 2). Maximum strength (both absolute and bodymass corrected) and explosive strength were shown to be strongly correlated with jump and Wingate power. Additionally, maximum .'Strength was strongly correlated with both coach's rank (parts 1 and 2) and sprint cycling times (part 2). The results suggest that larger, stronger sprint cyclists have an advantage in producing power and are generally faster sprint cyclists.
ABSTRACT. KEY WORDS,

sprinting, cycling, explosiveness

INIRODUCTION

/ ^ 1 * ' rom the perspective of this discussion, it may ^|_ be arfifued that there are three variables of T r primary importance for most strength/power ^^^y sports. These variahles are (a) maximum L . J strength, (b) power output, and (c) the peak rate-of-force development (PRFD). Strength can he defined as the ability to produce force (38, 40). Thus, .strength can have a direction and a magnitude, ranging from 0 force production to maximum. Maximum strength is the greatest force possible under specified conditions (34). Power is the rate of doing work (P ^ force X distance/time) and can be expressed as the product offeree and speed (P ^ force X velocity). Power can be calculated as an average over a range of motion or as an instantaneous value occurring at a particular instant during the displacement of an object. Peak power (PPl is the highest instantaneous power value found over a range of motion under a given set of conditions. Activities in which a movement sequence results in maximum
878

achievable velocities, such as sprint cycling, are strongly related to power production (46). The PRFD is associated with the concept of explosive strength and is directly related to the ability to accelerate objects, including body mass (37). Thus, a greater PRFD can increase acceleration capahilities. It can be argued that maximum strength is the basic quality that affects power output tl6. 18, 25, 37). There are several possible reasons why maximum strength may afTect peak power output, including (a) a given load would represent a smaller percentage of maximum strength for a stronger person, thus, this load would be easier to accelerate; (b) it is possible that a person with greater maximum strength would have a greater percentage or larger type II fibers. Type II fibers are the primary motor units that contribute to high power output; and (c) it is possible that, as a result of strength training (i.e., gi'eater maximum strength), additional alterations can occur simultaneously, which would affect power. These alterations could include hyperti'ophy of type II fihers, increases in the Type II/I cross-sectional area ratio and alterations in the nervous system (3, 13, 42). Nervous-system adaptations could include alterations in motor unit activation, such as increased rate-of-force production (1, 2, 42). Adaptations such as these would affect greater explosive strength and higher power outputs and could affect superior perfonnance. Furthermore, some data indicates that maximum strength affects power in a hierarchical manner with diminishing influence as the external load decreases to a point at which other factors, such as rate-of-force development, may become more important 136. 37). Therefore, it might be expected that maximum strength would have a greater affect in sports in which relatively large loads must be overcome (i.e., throwing events and sprint cycling). However, the exact associations between measures of maximum strength and various types of performance are not well understood. Coaches and sports scientists usually agree that, in sports such as weigbtlifting and particularly powerlifting, continuous increases in maximum strength would be advantageous. However, there is little or no agreement with regard to how much strength is necessary for most sports, including sprint cycling, that may have a need for strength, power, and speed. The purpose of these investigations was to describe the potential relationship between measures of isometric maximum strength (IPF) and isometric peak rate-of-force development (IPRFD)

STRENGTH AND CYCLING TABLE 1.

SPkiNiiNt. 879

Part SD Part SD

Biometric data for the cyclists (mean SD).''' Age Height 1 fn - 30) 178.34 30 5.6 7.53 2 (n = 20) 177.3 32.9 9.6 9.2

BdM 80.3 9.6 77.6 13.6

* Age = years; height in cm; BdM (hody mass) = kg; LBM (lean body mass) 7 sites) = mm.

Skinfold sum 9.5 63.1 3.5 22.6 12.8 78.0 4.8 24.0 kg; % fat (percent body fat); skinfold sum (sum of

LBM 71.9 7.4 67.7 13.7

%Fat

with (a) other variables that might potentially contribute to sprint cycling success, particularly peak power; and (b) sports pei-formance (sprint-cycling times).
METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem To investigate the relationship between maximum isometric strength and cycling performance and related variables, a 2-part study was carried out. Athletes involved in the investigations consisted of 2 heterogeneous subpopulations of sprint cyclists ranging from local to international elite cyclists. For both parts 1 and 2. the athletes reported to the laboratory on the morning of" day 1 for body composition, jump tests, and isometric strength tests (in this order). In the afternoon of day 1, the athletes returned (after 3 hours) for the modified Wingate tests. For part 2, the athletes followed the day 1 protocol and on day 2 the 1-lap sprints were timed. Thus, time trials were added for part 2 and all athletes performed under the same conditions. Part 1 was carried out in the winter (December 2002), when the velodrome was not available; part 2 was carried out in October 2003. Subjects (Parts 1 and 21. Tbe athletes volunteering were international-, national-, and local, (Denver, Colorado Springs) level cyclists. Part 1: The subjects consisted of 30 male cyclists (5 resident cyclists at the United States Olympic Committee Training Center lUSOCJ, 10 international-level bicycle motorcross riders, and 15 local cyclists which included several age-group national champions). Part 2: The subjects consisted of 16 male and 4 female cyclists (4 male residents at the USOC, 12 male and 4 female local cyclists, which included several national-level age-group champions). The biometric data for the athletes taking part in both studies is shown in Table 1. As a group, the athletes in part 1 were slightly larger and somewhat leaner than those in part 2. All subjects signed informed consents in accordance with American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. Body Mass and Composition (Parts 1 and 2). Body mass was measured on a digital scale (Toledo International Inc., Columbus, OH). Skin folds were measured with Lange skin-fold callipers (QuickMedical, Snoqualmie, WA). A 7-site skin-fold (SF) protocol was used to determine approximate body-fat percentages (21). Experienced laboratory personnel measured all SFs on the right side. In our laboratoi-y, test-retest reliability for skin folds has been intraclass correlations (ICC,,i^h) > 0.9. Maximum Strength and Explosive-Strength Measurement (Parts 1 and 2). Maximum strength was measured with an isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) using previously established testing protocols (12,42). Briefly, all isometric and dynamic lifts were performed on a custom-built isometric rack that allowed the bar to be fixed at any height above the floor using a combination of pins and hydraulic

FIGURE 1.

Isometric midthigh pull using adjustable power

rack,

jacks (Figure 1). The isometric rack was anchored to the floor and placed over a 61- X 121.9-cm AMTI force plate (Advanced Mechanical Technologies, Newton, MA). The force plate was sampled at 600 Hz, This isometric test was selected based on (a) previous research (26, 45), which suggests that isometric testing can be better generalized to dynamic movement if position is considered (i.e., measuring at the angles pi-oviding the highest peak forces) and previous research indicating tbat the IMTP has strong relationships to other types of strength/power performance (12, 42); (h) preliminary experience with cyclists indicating that the IMTP was the strength test of choice. Correlations with other variables have been consistently highthese consistently high correlations were not observed with other strength measurements, such as double- and single-leg isometric squats. A standardized warm-up based on previous experience was used (12). The position for each i.sometric pull was

880

STONE, SANDS, CARLOCK ET AL.

TABLE 2. Maximum strength and rate-of-force development (mean SDh* IPF/a IPRFD IPF IPF/KG Part 1 195.0 15,162 3.706 46.0 28,1 5.531 SD 719 6.0 194,0 12.576 3,591 46.1 Part 2 36,0 4,230 7.0 SD 875 * IPF - isometric peak force (midthigh pull); IPF/KG = IPF per kilogram of bod.v mass; IPF/a = IPF normalized allometrically; IPRFD = isometric peak rate-of-force development.

Maxima] vertical jump displacement was determined from flight time using the following formula: vertical jump displacement ^ (g X flight time x flight time) ^ 8, where g represents acceleration due to gravity and flight time is measured in seconds (6). Once tbe vertical displacement was calculated, peak power was estimated via the use of the Sayers et al. equation (35), PP (W) = (60.7Mjump height |cm|) + 45.3-body mass - 2055. (Partfi 1 and 2). Tbe Sayers et al. equation was selected because gender does not bias the results and peakpower error estimations from static and countermovement jumps are considered very small (19, 35). Previous to tbe present studies (USOC laboratory), simultaneous measurements of jump performance on tbe switch mat and force plate as assessed by flight time has produced high correlations in - 128, r - 0.99) for botb CJ and SJ. (Parts 1 and 2). Cycle power (WPP) was measured using a modified (18 second) inertia-corrected Wingate protocol. Tbe test was conducted using a pan-loaded cycle ergometer equipped with competition racing handlebars, saddle, and chain. Eacb subject used bis/ber own pedals and racing shoes. The test ergometer was configured to tbe exact dimensions (saddle height, headset height, and saddle-to-headset distance) as that of tbe athlete's competition cycle. Wheel revolution was determined using an optical sensor (SMI, St. Cloud, MN). Tbe mea.surement time (18 second) was chosen due to the similarity with riding time for a 250-m standard velodrome sprint. Resistance (load) was based oii tbe athlete's total body mass (TBM) measured witbout sboes on a standard digital scale (Toledo, Columbus, OH). A standard warm-up preceded the Wingate test. The warm-up consisted of 10-15 minutes of low-intensity cycling on a wind cycle, followed by 5 minutes of moderate cycling (2.0'/f TBM) with a 5second maximum-effort sprint (5.0% TBM for females, TBM 6.69? for males) performed at 2, 3, and 4 minutes of the 5-minute warm-up. On completion of the warm-up, the athlete rested for 2 minutes and then performed the test from a standing start. Test loads were 10.C/^ TBM for females and 13.3% TBM for males. These loads were somewhat bigher than standard but were appropriate for well-trained cyclists (23). WPP, average power, and total work were measured; however, only WPP was used in further analyses. Track Cycling Times (Part 2). Times for a 1-lap (333m) maximum-eiTort sprint were measured using a custom timing gate system (Banner, Minneapolis, MN). A stan-

established before each trial with the use of goniometry. Athletes acquired and maintained a knee angle of approximately 140-145 and a near-vertical trunk position (Figure 1). Once the position was established, the athlete's hands were strapped to the bar in accordance with previously established methods (12). With each trial, subjects were instructed to pull as bard and as fast as possible. Those commands were based on our previous experience and previous research indicating that the use of these instructions produces optimal results for maximal force and rate-of-force development (5, 33). A practice trial was performed and then each subject performed 2-3 maximumefftirl, isomt'ti'ic trials. Tbe 2 best trials (based on peak force) were averaged and used in the data analyses for IPF and IPRFD. Subjects were given 2-3 minutes rest between eacb trial. ICCs for reliability (test-retest) in parts 1 and 2 were ICC,,,,,,,,(IPF) > 0.98 and ICC,., (IPRFD) > 0.80. Power Tests (Parts 1 and 2). For the vertical jump tests, athletes performed a specific warm-up consisting of a dynamic warm-up, which lasted approximately 3 minutes, and was similar to procedures reported previously (43). All vertical jumps were performed on a 61- x 91.4cm switch mat (Tapeswitcb, Long Li^land, NY) interfaced with a microcomputer. A bands-placed-on-hips jump procedure was used (14, 45). This method of vertical jumping was selected in an attempt to minimize technique differences and focus on leg and hip explosiveness (15, 47). Prior to eacb jump test, each subject performed 2 practice jumps. Once the practice jumps were completed, the subjects performed 2 maximum-effort trials for each condition. A total of 8 vertical jumps (2 countermovement ICMJI and 2 static jumps |SJ|) were performed during each testing session. When testing the static vertical jump, athletes were instructed to bold a knee angle of 90 (determined by tester observation) for a 3-count duration. If a jump performance was unacceptable for any reason, that trial was repeated. The best 2 jumps of each type were average for data analyses. Test-retest reliability for botb types of vertical-jump displacement was 0.97 for botb parts 1 and 2.
TABLE 3.

Power-related variables (mean SD),* CMJPP CMJPP/KG CMJPPa CMJH SJH SJPP SJPP/KG SJPPa WPP WPP/KG WPPa 226 41.8 Part 1 44.6 4,291 53.2 4,118 51.1 265.0 1,581 19.6 83.4 27.6 SD 7.6 769 5.5 7.0 707 5.1 25,2 294 2.1 10.5 199.2 Part 2 37.3 3,706 47.2 35,3 3,599 45.9 194,0 1,386 17.7 74.6 SD 962 6.9 37.4 905 6.2 34.3 354 7.8 7,5 2.6 13.8 * CMJH = counter movement jump height (cm): CMJPP = CMJ peak power; CMJPP/KG = CMJPP per kilogram of body mass; CMJPPa = CMJPP normalized allometrically: SJH = Htatic jump height (cm); SJPP = SJ peak power; SJPP/KG = SJPP per kilogram of body mas-s; SJPPa = SJPP normalized allometrically; WPP = Wingate peak power; WPP/KG = WPP per kilogram of body mass; WPPa = WPP normalized ailometrically.

STRENGTH AND CYCLING SPRINTING

881

TABLE 4. Accumulative split times in seconds (mean SD).* 25 m B C2 F Cl LG 4.449 15.396 20.783 26.191 9.589 SD 0.306 1.037 1.761 1.7609 0.6332 HG 15.609 20.901 26.181 4.554 9.805 SD 1.011 1.410 1.817 0.271 0.598 *LG = low gear (84 in.); HG - high gear (90 in.); 25 m = initial 25-m start; Cl = middle of curve 1 (83.3 m); B - middle of back straight (166.6 m); C2 = middle of curve 2 (249.9 m); F = finish (333.3 m). dard standing start was used; the start began approximately 8 cm from the first timing gatetime hegan when the first timing gate was triggered. Photo-electric transducers (timing gates) were positioned above the ground so that the leading edge of the forward tire triggered each timing gate. Timing gates were set at the start (0 m), 25 m, the center of curve 1 (83.3 m), center of the back straight (166.6 mt, center of the second curve (249.9 m), and the finish (333 m). Timing gates were interfaced with a laptop computer and times collected to the nearest 1,000th second. Timing took place in 2 parts^a morning and afternoon session. Cyclists used their traditional warm-ups prior to each testing session. Cyclists were tested in a low gear (84 in.) in the morning and a high gear (90 in.) in the afternoon. Data for each condition were averaged for data analyses. Test-retest reliability for each condition for each split was ICC^ipi^ > 0.94. To further elucidate the association of maximum strength with sprint cycling performance and performance-related variahles, the athletes were divided into 2 comparison groups: part 2the 6 strongest vs. the 6 weakest athletesthe 6 fastest vs. the 6 slowest (at 25 m) athletes in the low gear (84 in.). Selection of the 25-m distance was arbitrary, as little difference in the athletes selected at any di.stance was noted. Comparisons were made for strength and power and time-related variables. Statistical Analyses Data were analyzed via descriptive statistics. Relationships between variables were described using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Congelations

were used to describe how variables covary, the relative strength of the relationships have heen previously discussed (10, 20), Hopkins (20) and Cohen (10) have rankod the meaningful ness of correlations as r = trivial (0.0), small (0.1), moderate (0.3), strong (0.5), very strong (0,7), nearly perfect 10.9). and perfect (1.0). Reliability/stahility of trials was determined using Chronhach's alpha procedure (17, 24). Potential type I error was reduced using the Dunn-Sidak method (39). Body mass differences among variables were normalized by dividing by body mass and by allometric scaling, i.e., hody mass to the power of 0.67 (22). Comparisons between high- and low-performing groups were made using (-tests.
RESULTS Descriptivp Vnrjablfs. Means and standard deviations for lPF, isometric strength per kilogram of body mass (IPF/ kg), isometric strength scaled allonietrically (IPF/ii), and peak rate-of-force development (IPRFD) are .shown in Table 2. Values for jump height (CMJH, SJH), jump peak power (CMJPP, SJPP), and Wingate peak power (WPP) are shown in Table 3. The values for normalized power variables (per kg and allometrically scaled) are also shown in Table 3. As a group (parts 1 and 2), strength characteristics values were similar to other strength/power athletes and power characteristics were higher than average as measured in our laboratory for athletes of the same relative competitive level. Track split times for the cyclists (part 2) are shown in Table 4. Correlations among power-related variables and Coach's rank were strong and ranged from -0.55 to 0.75. Correlations between power-related variables and accumulated split times are shown in Table 5. The WPP generally showed the strongest correlations with hoth rank and split times. Correlations between maximumstrength variables and sprint-cycle-related variables (i.e., jump height, jump power, and Wingate power) are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The correlations generally show strong relationships between maximum-strength variables and other variables related to sprint cycling. Somewbat surprisingly, IRFD did not correlate as well as IPF variables with most cycling-related variables or split times.

TABLE 5. Correlations between power-related variables and the accumulated split times (part 2).*t GMJH SJH SJPP SJPP/KG SJPPa CM-JPP CMJPP/KG CMJPPa WPP
LG

WPP/KG -0.66 -0.71 -0.74 -0.75 -0.74

WPPa -0,65 -0.68 -0.68 -0.68 -0.68

25 m
Cl B C2 F HG

-0.61 -0.65 -0.67 -0.67 -0.66

-0.68 -0.69 -0.69 -0.68 -0.68

-0.65 -0.69 -0.70 -0.69 -0.69

-0.57 -0.60 -0.61 -0.60 -0.60

-0.58 -0.61 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63

-0.65 -0.65 -0.65 -0.65 -0.65

-0.58 -0.61 -0.62 -0.62 -0.62

-0.51 -0.54 - 0.55 -0.54 -0.54

-0.71 -0.73 -0.74 -0.73 -0.74

-0.55 -0.59 -0.58 -0.51 -0.53 -0.56 -0.52 -0.45 -0.65 -0.65 -0,68 -0.60 -0.62 -0.62 -0.54 -0.57 -0.59 -0.56 -0.49 -0.68 -0.71 -0.69 -0.62 -0.64 -0.64 -0.56 -0.60 -0.61 -0.59 -0.52 -0.71 -0.74 -0.71 -0.61 -0.64 -0.63 -0.56 -0.60 -0.62 -0.59 -0.52 -0.71 -0.73 -0.71 -0.59 -0.63 -0.61 -0.54 -0.57 -0.62 -0.57 -0.50 -0.71 -0.71 -0.70 * All correlations were significant (p < 0.05). t CMJH = counter movement jump height !cni); CMJPP = CMJ peak power; CMJPP/KG = CM-IPP per kilogrjini ol'hody mass; CMJPPa = CMJPP normalized allometrically; SJH = static jump height (cm); SJPP = SJ peak power; SJPP/KG = SJPP per kilogram of body mass; SJPPa = SJPP normalized allometrically; WPP - Wingate peak power; WPP/KG - WPP per kilogram of body mass; WPPa = WPP normalized allometrically; LG = low geai- (84 in.); HG = high gear (90 in.); 25 m = initial 25-m start; Cl = middle of curve 1 (83.3 m); B - middle of back straight (166.6 m); C2 = middle of curve 2 (249.9 m); F = finish (33.3 m).
Cl B C2 F

25 m

882

STONK, SANDS, CARLOCK ET AL.

TABLE 6. Correlations of maximum-strength variables with body mass (BdM), lean body mass CLBM), peak rate-of-force development (IPRFD), and power variables.'^t Part 1 Part 2 IPF/KG IPF IPF IPFa IPF/KG IPFa 0.22 0.48 0.72 0.11 0.55 BdM 0.77 LBM 0.78 0.32 0.57 0.78 0.26 0.72 IPRFD 0.46 0.23 0.34 0.68 0.20 0.58 C'MJH 0.69 0.45 0.54 0.67 0.59 0.67 CMJPP 0.79 0.40 0.60 0.85 0.41 0.64 0.49 (^MJPP/KG 0.43 0.48 0.68 0.56 0.68 0.67 CMJPPa 0.44 0.57 0.78 0.52 0.73 SJH O.Sl 0.42 0.48 0.66 0.61 0.68 SJPP 0.78 0.39 0.59 0.86 0.42 0,61 HJPP/KG 0.42 0.40 0.43 0.69 0.62 0.72 0.62 0.42 0.54 0.78 0.56 0.76 arppn WPP 0.74 0.32 0.53 0.90 0.51 0.66 WPP/KG 0.45 0.32 0.40 0.59 0.67 0,71 WPPa 0.61 0.34 0.48 0.82 0.66 0,81 Rank -0.68 -0.45 -0.57 -0.70 -0.79 -0.77 ^ All correlations above 0.44 are statistically I IPF = isometric peak force (N); IPFa = isometric peak force normalized allonietricaily; IPRFD = isometric peak rate-of-force development (N X s '). TABLE 7. Correlations of maximum-strength variables with accumulated split times.*t

the strong and fast groups, was not statistically different in either comparison.
DISCUSSION

IPF LG

IPF/KG 0.45 0.50 0.53 0.54 -0.53

IPFa -0.45 0.50 -0.51 -0.52 0.51

IPRFD -0.39 -0.39 0.36 0.33 -0.33

25 m
Cl B C2

F
HG

-0.49 -0.54 -0.52 -0.50 -0.5p

0.28 -0.50 -0.58 -0.54 -0.56 0.30 -0.60 -0.51 -0.58 -0.32 0.61 B -0.54 -0.57 0.31 C2 -0.60 -0.55 0.55 0.30 F 0.58 -0.54 "' All correlations above 0.44 are statistically significant. t IPF ^ isometric peak force (mid-thigh pull); IPF/KG = IPF per kilogTam of body mass; IPF/a = IPF normalized Eillometrically; IPRFD = isometric peak rate-of-force development; LG = low gear (84 in.I; HG = higb gear (90 in.); 25 m = Initial 25-m .start; Cl = middle of curve 1 (83,3 m); B = middle of back straight (166.6 m); C2 = middle of curve 2 (249.9 m); F = finish (333.3 m). 25 m
Cl

Comparisons between extreme high-low groups are shown in Tahles 8 and 9. Stronger athletes were ahso significantly faster, jumped higher, and were more powerful than weaker athletes. Faster athletes were stronger than slower athletes. Interestingly, IPRFD, although higher in
TABLE 8.

Although isometric strength measures have been criticized as to their usefulnes.s in characterizing dynamic activities, the present study indicates that maximum isometric strength is strongly related to variables that, in turn, are associated with cycling success (i.e., power output, bodymass/Iean body mass). Furthermore, the data indicate that IPF is strongly related to the national coach's rank of the athletes and to sprint times produced during time trials. Thus, a primary finding of these studies deals with the marked influence of maximum strength on sprint-cycling ability and cycling-related variables. Sprint track cycling requires maximum effort resulting in maximum or near maximum rates of energy expenditure that must be matched by a rapid rate of energy supply (8). Because of the relative short time periods and high intensity of sprint cycling, it is logical to as.sume that tests/estimates of peak power, primarily reflecting work rates supported by phosphogens, would be associated with sprint-cycling .success (7). The relationship between cycle performance and cycle ergometry has been previously established as international and high-level cyclists produced greater amounts of work and higher power outputs than lesser cyclists (11, 44). In the present study, PP variables measured from the modified Wingate tests as well as WPP values normalized
on IPF (mean SD).* WPP WPPa 1,749 87 186 6 l,008t 63t 275 16

Strong SD Weak SD

Comparison of selected IPF IPFa 4,590 229 314 13 2.551t 161t 466 35

variables; strongest (n = 6) vs. weakest (n = 6t cyclists based BdM IPFRD HT CMJPP CMJPPa 15,948 88.1 183.9 228 4,589 3,444 5.4 5.4 17 507 86,489 62.5t 168.3t 166t 2,661t 2,489 7.9 47 7.8 837

25M

4.249 0.180 4.724t 0.384

* IPF = isometric peak force (N); IPFa - isometric peak force normalized allometrically; IPRFD = isometric peak rate*of-force development (N x s M ; HT = height (cm); BdM - body mass (kg); CMJPP CMJ peak power (W); CMJPPa - CMJPP normalized altometrically; WPP ~ Wingat peak power (W); WPPa = WPP normalized allometrically. t Denotes statistical difference from strong group (p < 0.05).

STRENGTH AND CYCLING SPKINMNG TABI.,E

883

9. Comparison of selected variables: fastest (n = 61 vs. slowest (n = 6) cyclists based on 25 m (mean Si.*t [PF IPFRD CMJPP CM,IPPa 25M IPFa BdM WPP WPPa HT Fast 219 13.250 80.7 4,269 225 1,646 87 4,164 180,9 4.140 SD 27 5,318 12.5 715 18 284 7 S03 8.8 0.070 Slow 86.51 10,326 170.0t 175t l,050t 63t 4.8l7t 169t 2,933t 2.795t SD 13.4 2,209 9.5 33 190 10 0.258 32 528 727 * IPF = isometric peak force: IPFa = isometric peak force normalized allometrically: IPRFD = isometric peak rate-of-force development; HT = height (cmt; BdM = body mass (kg); CMJPP = CMJ peak power (W); CMJPPa = CMJPP normalized allometrically; WPP = Wingate peak power (W); WPPa - WPP normalized allometrically; 25M = 25-m split time, low gear. t Denotes statistical difference from fast group (p < 0.05).

for body-mass differences were strongly associated with rank and with cycle split times, supporting the previous findings. Although WPP variables correlated somewhat higher, PP and normalized PP estimated from the CMJ and SJ also had strong correlations with WPP. rank, and split times. Thus, power variables, whether resulting from jumping or cycle ergometry, were associated with cycling success. It may be concluded that high peak power is a prime ingredient in producing successful sprint cyclists. Therefore, in the context of this discussion, it then becomes important to try and understand the relationship between a measure of maximum strength (IPF) and measures of cycling success (i.e., rank and split times) as well as other variables associated with success (i.e., jump and Wingate PP). McLean and Parker (27) showed that sprint cyclists were more mesomorphic, larger, and stronger than endurance cyclists, suggesting that these characteristics might also differentiate sprint performance ability. Additionally, Patton et al. (32) noted that maximal cycle ergometer power, in untrained men, was more dependent on factors related to body size than muscle-fiber characteristics. In the present study. Table 6 shows the relationships between IPF variables and variables associated with cycle success (i.e.. jump and Wingate). As expected, IPF correlates well with bodymass/lean body mass. However, the potential contribution of maximum strength to PP measures is still evident when body-mass differences are obviated (IPF/a). Similarly, strong correlations were also noted between maximum strength variables and split times (Table 7). These data indicate that superior sprint cyclists are larger and stronger than lesser sprint cyclists. If this relationship is conceptually correct, then (a) stronger cyclists should be larger, more powerful, and faster compared with weaker cyclists and fb) faster cyclists should be larger, stronger, and more powerful than slower cyclists. Comparisons of extremes (Tables 6 and 7) support this concept. The exact manner in which maximum strength affects greater power and better sprint-cycling performance is not obvious from the present data. Considering the split times and their relationship to IPF variables, no one split time had a greater or lesser relationship. The relative load (i.e., pedal resistance) should be much higher during the start (first 25 m) compared with the load after high velocity has been reached. Indeed, a greater effect of maximum strength on the first 25 m may have been expected as a greater inertia (i.e., higher relative load) had to be overcome. However, recent evidence indicates that maximum strength plays a major role in producing high PPs in light as well as heavy loads (30, 41, 42). It may be as simple as-altbough the pedal resistance is relatively low at high velocity, stronger athletes can maintain higher

repeated forces and greater power for short periods (i.e., pedal strokes during a sprint). Another potential mechanism whereby maximumstrength levels may influence sprint-cycling success concerns movement economy. Capelli (9), using mathematical modeling, suggested that in running, swimming, and cycling best performance times, for well-trained athlotes over a vanety of distances ranging from 1.000 to 10,000 m, is more aftected by movement economy tban other factors such as Vc^max or anaerobic capacity. Higher level distance runners tend to be more economical than lesser runners (29). Recently, strength training has hi'cn shown to enhance endurance running economy (28, 31) and a measure of cycling economy 14). While it is not possible to discern from the present data, perhaps being stronger results in a gi'eater sprint-cycling economy. The greater economy would allow higher speeds to bo achieved and maintained at all phases of a sprint eflbrt (33). In summary, the data presented indicate that isometric measures of maximum strength are associated with dynamic effort. Furthermore, the data indicate that the better sprint cyclists tended to be taller, had a larger body mass, and were more powerful and stronger. These data could be used in selecting potential sprint cyclists (talent identification) and in monitoring training.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Although covariation is only a first step in determining cause and effect, if one assumes that there is cause and effect, then increases in maximum strength and power should produce better sprint-cycling times. This reasoning would suggest that sprint cyclists would be advised to spend time in the weight room improving maximum strength and power. Although this study, as well as other research (43), indicates a strong relationship between maximum strength and power performance, only working to improve maximum strength may not optimize power or sport performance (40, 42). Evidence suggests that a sequenced, periodized approach in which maximum strength and power are optimized produces superior results.
REFERENCES
1. AAfiAAUD. P., E.B. SlMONSEN. J.L. ANDERSEN, P. MAGNUSSEN, AND P. DvnniK-PoLiLSKN. Neural adaptntion to resistance training: Changes in evoked V-wave and H-rnHex responses. J. Appl. PhyHiol. 92:2309-2318. 2002. AAGAARD. P., E.B. SlMONSEN. J.L. ANnr;R.SKN. p. MAr.NllSSON, ANn p. DVHRE-PoiTi^dN. Increased rate of force development and neural drive ofhuman skeletal muscle Ibllowing resistance training. J. Appl. Phym)l. 93:1318-1326. 2002. AAa\ARU, P., E.B. SlMONSEN, J.L. ANUERSEN. P. MAtlNl'RSEN,
J. HALKJAER-KKI.STENSEN, A N T i P. DYIIRE-POITI.SEN. Neural in-

2.

3.

884

STONE, SWJDS, CARLOCK ET AL.

hihition during maximal eccentric and concentric quadriceps ((iiitraction: Effects oi' resistance training. J. Appl, ['hysioL 89: 2249-2257. 2000.
4. BAKTIAANK, J.J., A.B. V A N DiEMANN. T. VENBERG, A N D A.E.

27.
28.

MCLEAN. D.. AND A.W. PAHKER. An anthropometric analysis of

elite Australian track cyclists. /. Sport Sci. 7:247-25.'i. 1989.

MILLET, G.P,, B . JAOUEN, F . BOHRANI, AND R. CANDAU. Effects

JF:IIKF.NPR['P. The efTects of replacing a portinn nf endurance training by explosive strength training on pciformanfe in trained cyclists. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:79-^84. 2001. 5. BKMniCN, M.G., J.L. Cl-ASEY, B.H. MASSKY. The efTect ol' the rate of contraction on the torce-time curve parameters of male and female subjects. Rea. Quart. 61(l):96-99. 1990. 6. Boaco. C , P. LUHTANEN, AND P.V. KoMl. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eitr. J. Appi Physiol. 50:27.V282. 1983.
7. BOUCHARD, C , A.W. TAYLOR, J. SIMONKAU, AND S. Dui,Ac.

of concurrent endurance and strength training on mnning economy and VO^ kinetics. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 34:13511359, 2002.
29. MoHfi,\.N, D.W.. D.R. BRANSPORP, D.L. COSTILL. J . T . DANrKUS,

E.T. HoWLEY, ..\ND G.S. KRAIIENHITHL. Variation in the aerobic demand of running among trained and untrained eubjects. Med. Sci. Sports E.xere. 27:404-409. 1995,
30. Moss, B.M.. P.E. RFFHNES. A. ABILDGARKD, K. NICOIJWSEN.

Testing anaerobic power and capacity. In: Physiological Testinf^ of the High Performance Athlete. Champaign, FI-.: Human Kinetics. 1991. pp. 175-221. 8. BiiitKi-:. PJ.R. The physiology of cycling. In: Scieniv of Cycling. E.R. Burke, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1986. pp. 119. 9. CAPKLLI, C. Physiological determinants of best performances in human locomotion. Eur. J. Appl. Phyaiol. 80:298-307. 1999. 10. CoiiFCN. J. S(a(i.stical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Scicntf-s- (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988,
11. DAVIKS, C'.T.M.. AND E.R, SANDHTROM. Maximal mechanical

AND J. JKN.SK.M. Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, loadpower and load-velocity relationships. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75: 193-199. 1997.
31. PAAVOLAINEN, L.. K. HAKKINEN. I. HAMV\[AINKN, A. NUMMKLA,

AND H. RuRKO. Explosive-Strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. <}. Appl. Physiol. 86:1527-1533. 1999.
32. PAITON, J , F . , W . J . KRAKMEH, H.G- KNV^TTOEN, AND E.A, HAR-

MAN. Factors in maximal power production and in exercise endurance relative to maximum power. Eur. J. Appl Phvsiol. 60: 222-227. 1990.
33. SAHALY, R., H . VANDEWALLE. T. DRISS, AND H, MONOD. Maxi-

power output and capacity of cyclists and young adults. Eur. J. Appl. Phy.tiol. 58:838-844. 1989.
12. HAFF. G.G.. M.H. STONK. H . S . O'BRYA>rr, E. HAKMAN, C . DIN-

34.

13.
14.

AN. R. JOHNSON, AND K.-H. HAN. Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J. S/rriigth. Cond. Res. 11:269-272. UI97. HAKKINKN, K. Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining and immobilization. Cril. Reu Phys. Rehab. Med. 6(3):16l-198. 1994.
HAKKINKN. K., P.V. KOMI, AND H . KAUHANF.N. P^Ilectromyo-

mal voluntary force and rate of force development in humans Importance of instruction. Eur. J. Appt. Physiol. 85(3-4):345350, 2001. SAI.E, D.G. Testing strength and power. In: Pliysiolofiical Testing of the High Performance Athlete. D. MacDougall, H.A. Wenger, and H.J. Green, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1991. pp. 21-106.
SAYER.S, S.P., D.V. HARACKIEWICZ. E.A, HARMAN, P . N . FRYK-

35.

3fi. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

graphic and force production characteristics of leg extensor muscles of elite weight lifters during isometric, concentric, and various stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Int. J. Sports. Med. 7(3):144-151. 1986.
15. HARMAN, E.A., M.T. RoSENSTETN. P.N. FRYKMAN, AND R.M. RO-

16. 17. 18. 19. 2U.

21.

SENSTKIN. The effects of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping. Med. Sri. Sports E.verc. 22:825-833. 1990. HENRY, K.M, Specificity VK generality in learning motor Hkilia. Prfx'. Coll. Phys. Ediic. Assoc. 61:126-128. 1958.' HENRY, F.M. "Best" versus average individual scores. Res. Quart. 38:317-320. 1967. HENRY, F.M., W.S. LtrrrEU. AND L.E. SMITH. Factorial structure of individual differences in limb speed, reaction and strength. Rrs. Quart. 33:70-84. 1962. llEKToiiH. C . AND O. HiiE. Jump evaluation of elite volleyball players using two methods: Jump power equations and force platform, d Sports Med. Phyn. Eit. 42:30()-303. 2002. Hoi'KiNS, W. A New View of Statistics. 1997 (updated 2003). Available at: C:\sportscistats\index.htm.
JACICHON, A.S., AND M.L. POLLOCK. Practical assessment of

MAN, AND M.T. ROSENSTEIN. Cross-validation of three jump power equations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:572-577. 1999, SCHMIDTBLEICMER, D. Strength training: Part 2: Structural analysis of motor strength qualities and its application to training. Sci. Period Ros. Tech. Sport 5:1-10, 1985 ScHlMlDTBLEiCHKR, U, Training for power events, fn: Strength and Poiver in Sports. P,V. Komi, ed, London: Blackwell Scientiiic Publications. 1992. pp. 381-395. SlFF, M. Biomechanical foundations of strength and power training. In: Biomechanics in Sport. V. Zatsiorsky, ed, London: Blackwell Scientific Ltd., 2000. pp. 103-139. SoiiAL, R.R., AND F. Ri.Hii,F. Biometry. New York: W,H, Freeman, 1969. STONE, M.H. Position/policy statement and literature review for the National Strength and Conditioning Association on "Explosive Exerci.se". NSCAJ. 15(4):7-15, 1993.
STONE. M.H., H.S. O'BRYANT, L. McCtiY. R. CO<;I.IANEKE, M .

LEHMKIM-11-, AND B. SCHII.LINO. Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:140-147. 2003.
42. STONE, M.H., K, SANHORN, H.S. O'BRYANT. M , E , HARTMAN. M.E. STONE. (:. PROULX, B. WARD, AND J. HKUBY, Maximum

strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J. Strength Cond. ffcs. 2003. 17:739-745. 2003,
43. STONE. M.H,, K. SANUORN, L.L. SMITH. H.S. O'BKYANT, T . HOKF:, A.C. UTTER, R.L. JOHNSON, R, BOROS. J, HKHHY. K . C.

22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

body composition. Phys. Sportmed. 13:76-90. 1985. JAKiC, S.. D. U(;AI{K<:VU:, AND M. KIIKOI,J. Evaluation of methods for normalizing muscle strength in elite and youn^ athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 42:141-151. 2002. Kl'lARNEY, J.T.. K.W. RuNDEi.L, AND R.L. WlLBEK. Measurement of work and power in sport. In: Exerci.'ic and. Sport Sciemv.. W.I-:. Garret and D.T. Kirkendall, eds. Philadelphia: Uppenccitt, Williams, and Wilkins, 2000. pp. 31-52. KitoLi., W, Reliability theory and research decision in selection of a criterion score. Res. Quart. 38:412-^19. 1967. MACINTOSH. D. The structure and nature of strength. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 14:168-177. 1974. MARCORA, S., AND M.K. MILI.ER. The effect of knee angle on the external validity of isometric measures of lower body neuromuHcular function../ Sport ScL 18:313-319. 2000.

44.
45.

PiRHCK. M,E, STONF. AND B, GARNKH. Effects of in-season (5 weeks) creatine and pynivate supplementation on anaerobic performance and body composition in American football players, fnt. J. Sports Nutr 9:146-165, 1999. WHITE, J.A., AND M,A, AL-DAWALiiiL Assessment of the power of racing cyclists, J. Sports Sei. 4:117-122. 1986.
WILSON, G.J., K.J, LYH LE, K.J. OSTROWSKI, AND A.J. MuRPllY.

46.
47.

Assessing dynamic performance: A comparison of rate of force development tests. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9(3):176-181. 1995. YouNc;. W, Training for speed/strength: Heavy versus light loads. A^SCA/. 15(5):34-42. 1993.
YouNt:. W., C, MACDONALD. T. HEOCJEN, AND J. Fny.i'ATHirK.

An evaluation of the specificity, validity and reliability of jumping tests. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 37:240-245, 1997.