J Appl Physiol 124: 831–839, 2018.
First published December 28, 2017; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017.
INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGY
Force-velocity test on a stationary cycle ergometer: methodological
recommendations
Briar L. Rudsits,1 Will G. Hopkins,1 Christophe A. Hautier,2 and X David M. Rouffet1,3
1
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia; 2Laboratoire Inter-universitaire de
Biologie de la Motricité, Université de Lyon, France; and 3Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science, Victoria
University, Melbourne, Australia
Submitted 8 August 2017; accepted in final form 21 December 2017
Rudsits BL, Hopkins WG, Hautier CA, Rouffet DM. Force-
velocity test on a stationary cycle ergometer: methodological recom-
mendations. J Appl Physiol 124: 831– 839, 2018. First published
December 28, 2017; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017.—Force-
velocity tests performed on stationary cycle ergometers are widely
used to assess the torque- and power-generating capacities of the
lower limbs. The aim of this study was to identify how testing and
modeling procedures influence the assessment of individual torque-
cadence and power-cadence relationships. Seventeen males completed
62 ⫾ 16 pedal cycles from six 6-s all-out efforts interspersed with 5
min of rest. True measures of maximal power for a particular cadence
were obtained for 24 ⫾ 3 pedal cycles, while power was only
94 ⫾ 3% of the true maximum in 19 ⫾ 5 pedal cycles. Pedal cycles
showing maximal levels of power also displayed higher levels of
electromyography (EMG: 89 ⫾ 7 vs. 87 ⫾ 7%) and coactivation
(34 ⫾ 11 vs. 31 ⫾ 10 arbitrary units), as well as lower variability in
crank torque and EMG profiles. Compared with the linear and second-
order polynomial models that are traditionally used, a better goodness
of fit was obtained when the torque-cadence and power-cadence
relationships were predicted using second- and third-order polynomi-
als, respectively. The later modeling procedures also revealed an
asymmetry in the power-cadence relationship in most participants
(i.e., 15 out of 17) and provided a better estimation of maximal
cadence [Cmax: 214 ⫾ 20 revolutions/min (rpm)] from the x-intercept
of power-cadence relationships (C0: 214 ⫾ 14 rpm). Therefore, we
recommend predicting the individual shapes of torque- and power-
cadence relationships using second- and third-order polynomial re-
gressions after having selected pedal cycles during which true mea-
sures of cadence-specific maximal power were recorded.
NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study is the first to demonstrate
that suboptimal activation of the lower limb muscles accompanied
reductions in cadence-specific levels of torque and power produced
during a force-velocity test performed on a stationary cycle ergom-
eter. This research is also the first to show that, in most noncyclist
participants, torque-cadence relationships are not linear, whereas
power-cadence relationships display asymmetric shapes, with
power production decreasing rapidly when cadence increases be-
yond 180 revolutions/min.
electromyography; maximal cadence; movement variability; power-
cadence relationships; torque-cadence relationships
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. M. Rouffet,
Victoria University, P.O. Box 14428, Melbourne VIC 8001, Australia (e-mail:
david.rouffet@vu.edu.au).
http://www.jappl.org 8750-7587/18 Copyright © 2018 the American Physiological Society
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
INTRODUCTION
Force-velocity tests performed on stationary cycle ergom-
eters offer a unique opportunity to assess force- and power-
generating capacities of the lower limbs using safe, accessible,
and reliable procedures (1, 8 –10, 12, 14, 22, 23, 32, 33, 44).
The implementation of force-velocity tests on a stationary
cycle ergometer consists of two steps. First, the choice of
testing procedure must allow for the recording of experimental
data that reflects the ability of each individual to produce
maximal levels of torque and power, over a wide range of
cadences. Second, the selection of modeling procedures must
provide a good fit of the torque- and power-cadence relation-
ships, so that the force- and power-generating capacities of the
lower limbs of each individual can be accurately determined.
Four different variables are commonly calculated to character-
ize these limits, i.e., the y- and x-coordinates of the apex of the
power-cadence relationship [i.e., maximal power (Pmax) and
optimal cadence (Copt)] and the y- and x-intercepts of the
torque-cadence relationship [i.e., maximal torque (T0) and
maximal cadence (C0)]. These variables can be used to predict
performances produced during sporting events and daily tasks.
For example, Pmax can be used to predict the performances of
sprint track cycling athletes (8), as well as the ability of athletes
to jump vertically (39), while Copt can be measured to estimate
muscle fiber distribution in the knee extensors (14). It has also
been shown that precise modeling of the power-cadence rela-
tionship is required to correctly quantify muscle fatigue during
sprint cycling events (11). Furthermore, some authors also
reported that T0 reflects the maximal strength of the main lower
limb muscles (10). However, it is important to note that
different types of testing and modeling procedures have been
employed to measure the force- and power-generating capac-
ities of the lower limb muscles on a stationary cycle ergometer.
Therefore, it seemed necessary to investigate if and how the
testing and modeling procedures used when performing a
force-velocity test on a stationary cycle ergometer influence the
assessment of the lower limbs’ force- and power-generating
capacities.
The force-velocity testing procedures performed on a sta-
tionary cycle ergometer have been adapted from the testing
procedures developed by muscle physiologists to study the
contractile properties of the muscle fibers (15, 42). One type of
testing procedure is based on the completion of a series of
maximal efforts performed in isokinetic mode, with cadences
ranging between zero and the maximal cadence participants
831
832 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
can achieve, i.e., Cmax (23, 33). The advantage of this testing
procedure is that a series of pedal cycles can be recorded for
each cadence tested, maximizing the chances of recording
maximal levels of torque and power for all the cadences
selected. The main limitation of this testing procedure is that a
large number of sprints is required if researchers want to obtain
maximal levels of torque and power over a wide range of
cadences, so that muscle fatigue could potentially limit torque
and power production for the data recorded at some cadences.
A second testing procedure is based on the completion of one
single maximal effort against an isoinertial load, initiated from
a stationary start (22). The main advantage of this testing
procedure is that torque and power can be measured over a
wide range of cadences from a single maximal effort, if the
external resistance is appropriately selected. The main limita-
tion of this testing procedure is that only one torque and one
power value are measured for each cadence, with a limited
number of cadences reached by the participants during a single
sprint. Therefore, maximal levels of torque/power might not be
produced during each pedal cycle, since the activation of the
lower limb muscles (27, 32) and the coactivation between
muscles producing and transmitting forces to the pedals (40,
45) are likely to vary between the pedal cycles completed
within a single all-out effort. Such variations in the motor
command can potentially affect torque and power production
(3, 19, 24, 31). A third type of testing procedure relies on
participants producing a series of maximal efforts initiated at
different cadences, and performed against different external
resistances (1, 8). With the use of this testing procedure, torque
and power levels can be recorded from multiple pedal cycles
over a series of cadence intervals ranging from zero to Cmax.
From this data set, it is likely that some true maximal levels of
torque and power can be identified for a large number of
cadence intervals and later used to assess the force- and
power-generating capacities of the lower limbs. This last
method also aligns with the methods commonly used to iden-
tify maximal voluntary force from a series of isometric con-
tractions (36).
Two different types of modeling procedure have been used
to fit the experimental data collected during force-velocity tests
on a stationary cycle ergometer. The first and most popular
modeling procedure (7, 8, 12, 22, 32) is selected based on the
assumption that torque-cadence and power-cadence relation-
ships display very simple shapes for all participants. With the
use of this modeling procedure, all power-cadence relation-
ships are fit using parabolas of symmetric shapes (i.e., 2nd-
order polynomials) while all torque-cadence relationships are
fit using linear regressions (i.e., 1st-order polynomials). This
modeling procedure appears to provide a good fit for the
torque- and power-cadence relationships of elite track cycling
athletes (8, 11, 12, 22). A second type of modeling procedure
has been used to fit the data points collected during force-
velocity tests performed on a stationary cycle, whereby torque-
cadence relationships are fit with second-order polynomials
and power-cadence relationships are fit with third-order poly-
nomials (1, 14, 44). This modeling procedure can provide the
same goodness of fit for linear torque-cadence relationships
and power-cadence relationships displaying parabolas of sym-
metric shapes. Additionally, it can theoretically provide a
better goodness of fit in case torque-cadence relationships
display nonlinear shapes and power-cadence relationships ex-
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
hibit asymmetric shapes. This seems important, since down-
ward inflections in the torque-cadence relationships have pre-
viously been observed in some participants at both low and
high cadences (39), which could explain why some authors (1)
reported that second- and third-order polynomials provide a
better fit of the individual torque-cadence and power-cadence
relationships, respectively. Based on these previous observa-
tions, it seemed necessary to rigorously compare the perfor-
mances obtained using the two modeling procedures when
predicting individual torque and power relationships from data
collected during a force-velocity test on a stationary cycle
ergometer.
Therefore, we studied how testing and modeling procedures
selected for a force-velocity test performed on a stationary
cycle ergometer can influence the assessment of the force- and
power-generating capacities of the lower limbs. First, we
investigated the importance of selecting testing procedures
allowing researchers to record a large number of pedal cycles
over a wide range of cadences using a series of maximal efforts
before selecting pedal cycles displaying the largest levels of
torque and power at specific cadences. We assumed that
participants would not able to produce maximal levels of
power during each pedal cycle of an all-out effort and that
variations in cadence-specific power production would be as-
sociated with variations in the levels of activation and coacti-
vation of the lower limb muscles as well as differences in the
variability of the motor command. Second, we compared the
ability of two modeling procedures to fit the data collected
during the force-velocity test and predict the individual torque-
and power-cadence relationships (including T0, C0, Copt, and
Pmax variables). We assumed that, depending on the partici-
pant, the torque-cadence and power-cadence relationships
would display different shapes so that higher-order polynomi-
als would better fit the relationships and provide a more
accurate estimation of the force- and power-generating capac-
ities of the lower limbs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Seventeen low-to-moderately active young healthy males volun-
teered to participate in this study (mean ⫾ SD; age: 26 ⫾ 4 yr; body
mass: 82.1 ⫾ 11.2 kg; height: 180.3 ⫾ 7.6 cm). Participants were
involved in recreational physical activities such as resistance training
and team sports but did not have any prior training in cycling.
Following an explanation of the testing procedures, participants gave
written informed consent before participating in the study. The ex-
perimental procedures were approved by Victoria University’s Hu-
man Research Ethics Committee (HRE13– 035) and conducted in
accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Experimental Setup
Participants cycled on an electromagnetically braked cycle ergom-
eter (Dynafit Pro Velotron; RacerMate, Seattle, WA) equipped with
170 mm scientific SRM PowerMeter cranks (Schoberer Rad
Messtechnik, JÜlich, Germany) and clipless pedals (PD-R540 SPD-
SL; Shimano, Osaka, Japan). For each participant, we adjusted the
external resistances applied to the flywheel by manipulating the
electromagnetic brake of the flywheel, using the Velotron Wingate
software (version 1.0; RacerMate).
Torque, cadence, and power measurements. The cranks were
connected to the Torxtar data-logging system to record two analog
 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
signals sampled at 250 Hz as follows: 1) a torque signal generated by
the strain gauges positioned within the spider of the PowerMeter and
2) a position signal used to detect left top dead center (LTDC) and
right top dead center (RTDC) crank positions and to identify the
start/end of the series of pedal cycles performed by the participants. A
static calibration of the PowerMeter, while connected to Torxtar, was
performed before and after data collection, following procedures
previously described (43). Participants’ riding position was defined by
setting the saddle height at 109% of inseam length (13) and adjusting
the handlebars to optimize comfort. Participants were also provided
with cycling shoes fit with cleats (SH-R064; Shimano).
Surface electromyography measurements. Simultaneous with crank
torque recordings, surface electromyography (EMG) signals were
bilaterally recorded from seven muscles of the lower limbs: gluteus
maximus (GMAX), rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VAS), sem-
itendinosus and biceps femoris (HAM), gastrocnemius medialis
(GAS), and tibialis anterior (TA). Disposable pregelled Ag-AgCl
surface electrodes (Blue sensor N; Ambu, Ballerup, Denmark) were
aligned parallel to the muscle fibers (interelectrode distance: 20 mm)
after the skin was shaved, lightly abraded, and cleaned with alcohol
swabs. Electrodes and wireless sensors were secured with adhesive
tape to ensure good contact with the skin and reduce movement
artifact. EMG signals were sampled at 1,500 Hz and sent in real time
to a wireless receiver (Telemyo DTS wireless Noraxon) before being
recorded continuously on a computer using MyoResearch software
(Noraxon). To enable synchronization of the EMG and torque-record-
ing systems, an auxiliary analog channel of the EMG system was used
to record a 3-volt pulse generated by the closure of a reed switch every
time the cranks were vertically oriented.
Experimental Protocol
Participants visited the laboratory on two different occasions.
During the first visit, participants were familiarized with the equip-
ment, warm-up protocol, and testing procedures (6, 21). On the
second visit, the main testing session was conducted using the same
equipment and testing procedure as the familiarization session. Par-
ticipants performed a 15-min warm-up protocol followed by 5 min of
passive rest before the start of the force-velocity test. The force-
velocity test consisted of six all-out sprints of 6 s each, interspersed
with 5-min rest periods (1, 8). The external resistances applied to the
flywheel for the various sprints ranged between 0 and 4 N·m·kg body
mass⫺1. Two of the sprints were initiated from stationary starts
against high resistances, three sprints were initiated from rolling starts
at cadences around 80, 100, and 120 revolutions/min (rpm) against
moderate to low resistances (the flywheel was accelerated by the
experimenter to reach the starting cadence), and one sprint was
initiated from a stationary start against no resistance (the chain was
removed). The force-velocity test protocol was designed to record
multiple pedal cycles over most sections of the power-cadence rela-
tionships (i.e., cadences ranging from 0 to the maximal cadence that
could be reached by each participant). The sprint performed against no
external resistance was used to obtain a direct measurement of a
participant’s Cmax. Sprint order was randomized for each participant.
Before each sprint, participants were instructed to produce the highest
acceleration possible during each pedal cycle while remaining seated
on the saddle and keeping their hands on the dropped portion of the
handlebars. The experimenters vigorously encouraged the participants
throughout the duration of each sprint.
Data Analysis and Statistics
All mechanical and EMG signals were processed off-line using
Visual3D software (version 5; C-Motion, Germantown, MD). For
statistics, comparisons of means of outcome variables were performed
with a customized spreadsheet using magnitude-based inferences and
standardization to interpret the meaningfulness of the effects (16). The
standardized effect was calculated as the change in means divided by
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
833
the SD of the reference condition and interpreted using thresholds set
at ⬍0.2 (trivial), ⱖ0.2 (small), ⱖ0.6 (moderate), ⱖ1.2 (large), ⱖ2.0
(very large), and ⱖ4.0 (extremely large) (5, 18) and presented with
90% confidence intervals (⫾CI). Likelihoods for the true magnitudes
of the standardized effect were assessed with nonclinical magnitude-
based inferences using the following scale: ⱖ25%, possibly; ⱖ75%,
likely; ⱖ95%, very likely, and ⱖ99.5%, most likely.
Crank torque, EMG, and coactivation profiles. First, crank torque
signals were low-pass filtered (10 Hz; Butterworth filter). The analog
crank torque and crank position signals were then used to calculate
average cadence and average crank torque over full cycles (i.e., from
LTDC to LTDC and from RTDC to RTDC), before average power
was computed using a previously proposed equation (22). Experimen-
tal data points collected for each cycle completed within the 6-s period
for the six sprints were used to describe individual power-cadence
relationships. All EMG signals were high-pass filtered (20 Hz; But-
terworth filter), root mean squared with a 25-ms moving rectangular
window, and smoothed using a low-pass filter (10 Hz; Butterworth
filter). Time-normalized profiles were created for EMG activity of six
muscles (i.e., GMAX, RF, VAS, HAM, GAS, and TA) and coactiva-
tion of four muscle pairs (i.e., VAS-GAS, GMAX-RF, VAS-HAM,
and GMAX-GAS). The amplitude of all EMG signals was normalized
according to the methods previously defined by Rouffet and Hautier
(30). For each muscle pair, we calculated an average coactivation
index over the pedal cycle for each muscle pair using the following
equation (25):
兺
n EMG1
i⫽1 ⫻ 共EMG1 ⫹ EMG2兲
៮ EMG2
X⫽ ,
n
where EMG1 and EMG2 represent the normalized EMG amplitude of
the two muscles from the corresponding muscle pair for a given
interval i of the pedal cycle, with n ⫽ 101 intervals.
Selection of pedal cycles. After having allocated the pedal cycles
performed during the six all-out efforts to a series of cadence intervals
(width was set at 5 rpm), we determined the maximal level of power
measured for each cadence interval. Next, we selected the pedal
cycles for which power levels ranged between 90 and 100% of the
maximal value obtained for the corresponding cadence interval (see
Fig. 1A). When the power value was ⬍90%, the corresponding pedal
cycle was excluded from the subsequent analysis. All profiles (i.e.,
crank torque, EMG, and coactivation) were extracted from each pedal
cycle selected based on the power values. The following variables
were calculated from the profiles: 1) peak EMG activity of each
muscle and 2) average coactivation index of each muscle pair.
Additionally, a variance ratio (VR) was calculated to estimate be-
tween-cycles variability in all profiles for each individual (30).
Changes in means between the two sets of pedal cycles (maximal and
near-maximal levels of power) were analyzed for average power, peak
EMG, average coactivation index, and variance ratios.
Modeling procedures. For each individual, the power-cadence and
torque-cadence relationships were modeled using only the series of
pedal cycles for which maximal levels of power were measured. Each
participant’s power-cadence relationship was fit using both third-order
(1, 14, 44) and second-order (7, 8, 12) polynomial regressions, with a
fixed y-intercept set at zero for both types of regression. Standard error
of the estimate (SEE) and r2 values were calculated to compare the
goodness of fit of the power-cadence relationships using both types of
polynomial regressions. SEE values were compared using the same
statistical approach as for change in means described above, but
magnitude thresholds for assessing the standardized effect were
halved (35). Thresholds for r2 and changes in r2 were derived by a
novel approach also based on standardization. Because r2 ⫽ variance
explained ⫽ SD2/(SD2 ⫹ SEE2), substituting threshold values of 0.1,
0.3, 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 for SEE gives thresholds for interpreting a given
r2 of 0.99, 0.92, 0.74, 0.50, and 0.20 for extremely high, very high,
834 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Fig. 1. Experimental data recorded, selected, and modeled for a representative
participant who completed the force-velocity test. A: power values were
recorded for cadences ranging from ~40 to ~190 revolutions/min (rpm) using
5 sprints performed against different levels of external resistance. An experi-
mental measure of maximal cadence (i.e., Cmax) was obtained from a sprint
performed against no external resistance. B: pedal cycles for which participants
produced a maximal level of power at a particular cadence interval (filled
circles) were selected and used to model the power- and torque-cadence
relationships. Pedal cycles for which participants produced between 90 and
100% of their maximal power within the same cadence interval were also
identified (open circles). C: individual torque-cadence relationships were
modeled using second-order polynomials to estimate maximal torque (T0)
while the individual power-cadence relationships (shown in Fig. 3A) were fit
using third-order polynomials to calculate maximal cadence (C0), optimal
cadence (Copt), and maximal power (Pmax).
high, moderate, and low values, respectively (17). A clear improve-
ment in r2 was identified when the use of third-order polynomials fit
to power-cadence relationships resulted in an increase of the r2 value
from one magnitude threshold to the next higher threshold (e.g., a
change from 0.74 to 0.92, a change of 0.18) compared with the r2
value obtained using second-order polynomials fit to the same set of
data points.
The equations of the third-order polynomials fit to the power-
cadence relationships were used to predict power values for cadences
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
between 40 and 200 rpm. The same calculations were made using the
equations of the second-order polynomials fit to the same set of data
points (7, 8, 12). We compared the levels of power predicted using the
two types of regression for a set of 17 cadences (one comparison was
made every 10 rpm between 40 and 200 rpm). Next, we compared
Pmax (i.e., y-coordinate of the apex), Copt (i.e., x-coordinate of the
apex), and C0 (i.e., intercept of the curve with the x-axis) calculated
from the equations of the two types of polynomial regressions. Using
the equations of the third-order polynomial regressions, we also
compared the levels of power predicted on both sides of the power-
cadence relationship (for the same change in cadence in reference to
Copt) to identify if the curves displayed asymmetric shapes. C0 values
were compared with those obtained using the traditional methods, for
which the x-intercept of the torque-cadence relationships is calculated
from the equations of first-order polynomial regressions. We also
determined if the C0 values calculated from the modeling procedure
we propose provided a better estimate of the Cmax that were experi-
mentally measured in the sprint performed against no resistance.
Additionally, we assessed the correlations between the two sets of C0
values and Cmax. Next, we looked at the distribution of the Copt/C0
ratios (calculated when power-cadence relationships were fit using
third-order polynomials) to define the level of asymmetry in the
shapes of the power-cadence relationships. Finally, the equations of
the power-cadence relationships fit with third-order polynomials were
used to derive torque-cadence relationships over the same set of
cadences (see Fig. 1B). The derived torque-cadence relationships were
subsequently fit using second-order polynomials before T0 was cal-
culated as the intercept of the torque-cadence relationship with the
y-axis. T0 values were compared with those obtained from the equa-
tions of the first-order polynomials fit to the original torque-cadence
relationships, based on the methods traditionally used (7, 8, 12).
Comparisons of means for the predicted variables (i.e., T0, C0, Copt,
Pmax, and cadence-specific power values) were also performed using
magnitude-based inferences and standardization to interpret the mean-
ingfulness of the effects (16).
RESULTS
Testing Procedure
A total of 62 ⫾ 16 experimental data points were collected
for each participant, with participants performing pedal cycles
at cadences ranging from 41 ⫾ 7 and 214 ⫾ 20 rpm. Maximal
levels of power, i.e., corresponding to 100 ⫾ 0.4% of the
power values predicted when the power-cadence relationships
were fit using third-order polynomials, were identified for
24 ⫾ 3 pedal cycles for each participant. Near-maximal levels
of power, corresponding to 94 ⫾ 3% of the predicted power
values, were identified for 19 ⫾ 5 pedal cycles for each par-
ticipant. As reported in Table 1, comparisons between the
power values of the two sets of pedal cycles revealed likely
small differences. Higher peak EMG levels for four muscles;
i.e., GAS (0.30 ⫾ 0.19), RF (0.33 ⫾ 0.31), TA (0.46 ⫾ 0.22),
and VAS (0.21 ⫾ 0.18), and higher coactivation indexes for
three muscle pairs, i.e., GMAX-RF (0.32 ⫾ 0.26), VAS-GAS
(0.26 ⫾ 0.16), and GMAX-GAS (0.34 ⫾ 0.29), accompanied
the differences seen for crank power. As shown in Fig. 2, pedal
cycles characterized by larger levels of power displayed lower
VR values for crank torque (⫺0.43 ⫾ 0.52) and VAS EMG
profiles (⫺1.16 ⫾ 0.62). Lower VR values (see Table 2) were
also observed for the EMG profile of HAM (⫺0.51 ⫾ 0.58),
GAS (0.90 ⫾ 0.54), RF (⫺1.65 ⫾ 0.70), and TA (⫺0.55 ⫾
0.36) and the coactivation profiles of VAS-GAS (⫺0.26 ⫾
0.38) and GMAX-RF (⫺0.21 ⫾ 0.42).
 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 835
Table 1. Differences in the amplitude and variability of the Table 2. Summary of the effect of the modeling procedures
mechanical and neuromuscular variables between the two on the calculation of the key variables generally derived
sets of pedal cycles identified based on cadence-specific from the power-cadence and torque-cadence relationships
levels of power produced during the force-velocity test
Higher-Order Polynomials Lower-Order Polynomials
Amplitude Variability 1,174 ⫾ 184 1,132 ⫾ 185*
Pmax, watts
Maximal Near maximal Maximal Near maximal Copt, rpm 123 ⫾ 9 120 ⫾ 10**
C0, rpm 214 ⫾ 14 252 ⫾ 28****
Crank 983 ⫾ 226 932 ⫾ 227** 0.30 ⫾ 0.10 0.35 ⫾ 0.15** T0, N·m 136 ⫾ 41 172 ⫾ 31****
GMAX 81 ⫾ 15 82 ⫾ 17‡ 0.29 ⫾ 0.09 0.30 ⫾ 0.11†
HAM 93 ⫾ 12 90 ⫾ 11† 0.30 ⫾ 0.09 0.35 ⫾ 0.11** Values are means ⫾ SD. Pmax, maximal power; Copt, optimal cadence; C0,
GAS 87 ⫾ 13 83 ⫾ 14** 0.16 ⫾ 0.05 0.21 ⫾ 0.09*** maximal cadence; T0, maximal torque; rpm, revolutions/min. Nontrivial stan-
RF 91 ⫾ 6 89 ⫾ 8** 0.23 ⫾ 0.08 0.37 ⫾ 0.14**** dardized effects, with likelihood denoted as possibly (*), likely (**), and most
TA 91 ⫾ 8 88 ⫾ 8*** 0.28 ⫾ 0.16 0.37 ⫾ 0.21** likely (****).
VAS 90 ⫾ 9 88 ⫾ 7* 0.18 ⫾ 0.06 0.25 ⫾ 0.12**
GMAX-RF 37 ⫾ 9 34 ⫾ 10** 0.24 ⫾ 0.07 0.26 ⫾ 0.11*
VAS-GAS 24 ⫾ 11 21 ⫾ 12* 0.25 ⫾ 0.09 0.27 ⫾ 0.09* both SEE and r2 values were obtained (see Fig. 3, C and D).
VAS-HAM 45 ⫾ 12 44 ⫾ 11† 0.23 ⫾ 0.07 0.23 ⫾ 0.09† Differences in the goodness of fit were accompanied by dif-
GMAX-GAS 31 ⫾ 13 26 ⫾ 10** 0.26 ⫾ 0.07 0.26 ⫾ 0.12† ferences in the predicted power values, with lower values being
Data are means ⫾ SD. GMAX, gluteus maximus; HAM, semitendinosus predicted using third-order polynomials at high cadences (i.e.,
and biceps femoris; GAS, gastrocnemius mediali; RF, rectus femoris; TA, ⬎180 rpm), as shown in Fig. 4A. The use of third-order
tibialis anterior; VAS, vastus lateralis. Standardized effects are presented polynomials also revealed an overall asymmetry in the shape of
with ⫾ 90% confidence interval (CI). Nontrivial standardized effects with
likelihood of possibly (*), likely (**), very likely (***), and most likely the power-cadence relationships. More specifically, changes in
(****). Likelihood of trivial standardized effect is denoted as possibly (†) and cadences in reference to Copt led to larger changes in power on
likely (‡). the right side of the curve, i.e., at higher cadences (see Fig. 4B).
As reported in Table 2, the values of all key variables differed
Modeling Procedure between the two methods used to fit the same set of experi-
mental data points. Pmax was possibly larger (⫺0.22 ⫾ 0.05)
For most participants, differences in the shapes of the while Copt was likely higher (⫺0.29 ⫾ 0.16) when power-
power-cadence relationships (see Fig. 3, A and B) and the key cadence relationships were predicted using third-order polyno-
variables derived from the torque- and power-cadence relation- mial regressions. C0 predicted from third-order regressions fit
ships (see Table 2) were observed between the two modeling to power-cadence relationships were most likely lower than C0
procedures. When third-order polynomials were selected, predicted from first-order polynomials fit to torque-cadence
lower SEE values (29 ⫾ 7 vs. 53 ⫾ 20 W; factor of 0.6, 90% relationships (2.65 ⫾ 0.75). Importantly, only trivial differ-
confidence limits 0.5– 0.7), marginally higher r2 values ences (0.00 ⫾ 0.30) were observed between maximal cadences
(0.97 ⫾ 0.02 vs. 0.89 ⫾ 0.6), and less heteroscedasticity for measured during the sprint against no resistance (Cmax;

Fig. 2. Variability of the crank torque and

electromyography (EMG) profiles for the
pedal cycles during which maximal (i.e.,
100%, black lines) and near maximal (i.e.,
⬎90 and ⬍100%, gray lines) levels of power
were produced by a representative partici-
pant. A and B: lower variance ratio (VR)
values were calculated for the crank torque
profiles recorded during the pedal cycles for
which maximal levels of power were pro-
duced. C and D: lower VR values were also
calculated for the EMG profiles of the vastii
muscles recorded during the pedal cycles for
which maximal levels of power were pro-
duced. VR values were calculated from 10
pedal cycles selected over the same cadence
intervals for both conditions. VAS, vastus
lateralis.

J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
836 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Fig. 3. Individual shapes of the power-cadence relation-

ships and goodness of fit of the experimental data ob-
tained using the new and traditional modeling proce-
dures. A: in most cases, an asymmetry in the power-
cadence relationships and lower C0 values were predicted
using 3rd-order polynomial regressions. B: when using
2nd-order polynomials, all power-cadence relationships
can only be described as symmetric, which led to the
prediction of higher C0 values. C and D: goodness of fit
of the data points was clearly better when the individual
power-cadence relationships were modeled using 3rd-
order polynomial regressions, as shown by larger r2
values, lower standard error of the estimates, and less
heteroscedasticity in r2 and SEE values.

214 ⫾ 20 rpm) and those predicted from third-order polyno-
mials fit to power-cadence relationships (C0; 214 ⫾ 14 rpm).
Furthermore, we saw a large correlation (r ⫽ 0.67) between
Cmax and C0 values predicted from third-order polynomials
(Fig. 4C). As shown in Fig. 4D, the use of third-order poly-
nomials revealed that Copt/C0 ratios ranged from 0.5 to 0.62
with 16 out of 17 participants displaying power-cadences of
asymmetric shapes. Finally, T0 values derived from power-
cadence relationship fit with third-order polynomials were
most likely lower than T0 values predicted from first-order

Fig. 4. Analysis of the asymmetry in the

power-cadence relationships revealed by the
3rd-order polynomial regressions. A: lower
levels of power were predicted for cadences ⬎
Copt ⫹ 60 rpm compared with those obtained
using the traditional modeling procedure (i.e.,
2nd-order polynomials). Values shown are
standardized effects ⫾ 90% confidence inter-
val (CI). B: lower levels of power were pre-
dicted on the right side of the curve predicted
using 3rd-order polynomials, with differences
seen when cadence deviated from Copt by ⬎40
rpm. Values shown are mean ⫾ SD. C: Cmax
was better predicted by C0 values calculated
using 3rd-order polynomials (open circles)
than by those calculated using 2nd-order
polynomials (filled circles). The identity line
is represented by the broken line. D: asym-
metric nature of the power-cadence relation-
ships was also revealed by the calculation of
Copt/C0 ratios larger than 0.5 (shown by the
broken line) in most participants. The range
of Copt/C0 ratios (i.e., 0.5– 0.62) also re-
vealed that the level of asymmetry varied
across participants. Magnitudes of the stan-
dardized effect are denoted as small (~),
moderate (⫹), large ($), very large (#), and
extremely large (^).

J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
polynomials fit to torque-cadence relationships (⫺0.83 ⫾
0.17).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate how the testing and
modeling procedures selected for a force-velocity test per-
formed on a stationary cycle ergometer can influence the
assessment of the force- and power-generating capacities of the
lower limbs. First, we observed that from the six all-out efforts
of the force-velocity test, small variations in power were seen
between pedal cycles, despite the fact that participants at-
tempted to produce maximal levels of power during all pedal
cycles. These variations in power were accompanied by small
variations in peak EMG of four muscles (i.e., VAS, RF, GAS,
and TA), coactivation levels of three muscle pairs (i.e.,
GMAX-RF, GMAX-GAS, and VAS-GAS), and variability of
the motor command (i.e., torque and EMG profiles) between
the pedal cycles. Second, our results clearly show that higher-
order polynomial regressions provided a better fit to the torque-
cadence (i.e., second-order polynomials) and power-cadence
(i.e., third-order polynomials) relationships of most partici-
pants. This modeling procedure revealed that the shapes of the
torque-cadence and power-cadence relationships differ be-
tween participants. A majority of participants displayed torque-
cadence relationships that were not perfectly linear and power-
cadence relationships that had asymmetric shapes, with larger
drops in power seen on the right side of the power-cadence
relationships of most participants (i.e., 16 out of 17).
Using the force-velocity test protocol selected in this study,
we recorded a large number of pedal cycles (i.e., 62 ⫾ 16) over
a wide range of cadences (from 41 ⫾ 7 to 214 ⫾ 20 rpm), with
multiple pedal cycles obtained for most of the 5-rpm cadence
intervals (see Fig. 1A). Based on previous results (20, 28), we
can assume that six 6-s sprints, interspersed with 5-min recov-
ery periods, did not cause muscle fatigue. All pedal cycles
recorded during the force-velocity test could theoretically be
used to characterize the torque- and power-cadence relation-
ships (1, 7, 8, 32). However, comparisons of the levels of
power produced within the same cadence interval revealed
differences between the pedal cycles (see Fig. 1B), confirming
observations from previous studies (1, 7, 8, 32). This result
shows that, despite the fact that the participants attempted to
produce a maximal effort during each pedal cycle, they did not
always produce the maximal levels of torque and power for a
particular cadence. Interestingly, the variations in cadence-
specific power were associated with small differences in the
peak EMG activity of VAS and GAS muscles, but also RF and
TA muscles, which are, respectively, major contributors to
power production during both the downstroke and upstroke
phases of the pedal cycle (45). Results obtained during isomet-
ric maximal contractions show that voluntary activation levels
often vary between maximal efforts, with these variations
leading to changes in the force produced (37). Therefore, one
can assume that variations in the neural drive generated by the
motor cortex to these four lower limb muscles (34) may have
caused variations in the level of torque/power produced be-
tween pedal cycles performed during the force-velocity test.
Furthermore, the observed variations in the coactivation of
three muscle pairs (i.e., GMAX-RF, VAS-GAS, and GMAX-
GAS) suggest that higher levels of cocontraction between
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
837
monoarticular agonists and biarticular antagonists (40) may
also contribute to increasing torque and power production
during maximal cycling. Finally, less variability in the torque
and EMG profiles also accompanied the production of larger
levels of cadence-specific torque and power (see Table 1). In
line with motor learning theories (24), our results show that
large variations in the neural drive to the lower limb muscles
and the resulting crank forces prevent noncyclists from con-
sistently producing maximal levels of torque and power.
Therefore, just as it is important to record multiple maximal
contractions for assessing isometric maximal voluntary force
of a muscle group (2, 38), it seems essential to record multiple
torque/power values at a similar cadence before selecting the
largest levels of torque and power.
In line with previous observations (1), higher-order polyno-
mial regressions provided a better fit of the torque-cadence and
power-cadence relationships with less heteroscedasticity in the
r2 and SEE values (see Fig. 3, C and D). In most participants,
the use of second- and third-order polynomials led to the
prediction of torque- and power-cadence relationships present-
ing shapes that differed from those predicted using the tradi-
tional modeling procedures. Only one participant showed sim-
ilar goodness of fit (i.e., SEE and r2 values) and a similar
Copt/C0 ratio (i.e., 0.5) when using the two modeling proce-
dures (see Fig. 4D). Therefore, one can conclude that, in most
cases, torque-cadence relationships are not perfectly linear and
power-cadence relationships are not perfectly symmetric when
studying a population of noncyclists (see Fig. 3A). It is also
important to observe that some substantial variations in the
shapes of the torque- and power-cadence relationships were
seen between the participants. The range of Copt/C0 ratios (i.e.,
from 0.5 to 0.62; see Fig. 4D) specifically shows how the shape
of power-cadence relationships varied across the participants.
Therefore, the use of second- and third-order polynomials is
essential to ensure a good fit of all individual torque-cadence
and power-cadence relationships (see Fig. 3, C and D).
The largest and most likely differences between the two
modeling procedures were observed for the torque and power
values predicted at high cadences. Specifically, the use of
third-order polynomials revealed that group average power
levels predicted on the right side of the power-cadence rela-
tionship were lower than those predicted on the left side when
cadence deviated from Copt by more than 40 rpm (see Fig. 4B
and Table 2). Furthermore, lower power values were predicted
using third-order polynomials for cadences larger than ~180
rpm, i.e., Copt ⫹ 60 rpm (see Fig. 4A), leading to the prediction
of C0 values that were most likely lower (see Table 2).
Importantly, we observed a strong correlation (Fig. 4C) and
trivial differences between Cmax and the C0 values that were
predicted by modeling power-cadence relationships using
third-order polynomial regressions. In comparison, the use of
low-order polynomials led to an overestimation of the maximal
cadence with poor correlation between C0 and Cmax (Fig. 4C).
Altogether, these results provide solid evidence for the supe-
riority of higher-order polynomials to provide a better estimate
of torque and power levels at high cadences. Results from
previous studies suggest that activation-deactivation dynamics
could limit power production during all-out cycling exercises
performed at cadences ⬎120 rpm (4, 41), which could partly
explain the overall asymmetry of the power-cadence relation-
ships observed in our participants. However, interindividual
838 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
differences in the Copt/C0 ratios (i.e., from 0.5 to 0.62) suggest
that the level of asymmetry observed for the power-cadence
relationships could also be caused by discrepancies in the
motor control strategies selected by the participants for those
pedal cycles completed at high cadences (3, 19).
Differences were most likely observed between the two
modeling procedures for the torque and power values predicted
at low cadences, in line with results previously reported by
Vandewalle et al. (39). Specifically, lower levels of torque
were predicted using second-order polynomials for cadences
⬍70 rpm, leading to the prediction of T0 values that were most
likely lower (see Table 2). Previous findings suggest that a
deficit in muscle potentiation (29), neural inhibitions (26),
and/or an inability of participants to remain seated on the
saddle (39) could lower torque production at low cadences.
Unlike for C0, it was not possible to assess the validity of the
T0 values calculated using both modeling procedures because it
is very challenging to obtain an experimental measure of this
variable. Such a measurement requires a mechanical system
that locks the flywheel so that participants can produce a series
of maximal isometric voluntary contractions with the cranks
positioned at different angles (i.e., ranging from 0 to 360
degrees). Additionally, using third-order polynomial regres-
sions to model the individual power-cadence relationships had
a small effect on Pmax (i.e., possibly higher) and Copt (i.e.,
likely higher). Therefore, our results clearly show that the
shapes of the torque-cadence and power-cadence relationships
and the key variables derived from these relationships (i.e., T0,
C0, Copt, and Pmax) differed between the new modeling proce-
dure proposed and the traditional modeling procedure (7, 8,
12).
To conclude, a robust assessment of the torque and power-
generating capacity of the lower limbs on a stationary cycle
ergometer first requires the selection of a force-velocity test
protocol allowing the recording of a large number of pedal
cycles completed over a wide range of cadences. It is important
to obtain several measures of torque and power at each cadence
interval with noncyclists because they do not consistently
produce maximal torque and power with every pedal cycle.
Our results show that variations in the voluntary activation of
some lower limb muscles and the variability of the pedaling
movement were associated with variations in torque and power
production. Second, the shapes of the torque-cadence and
power-cadence relationships were affected by the modeling
procedure selected for most participants (i.e., 16 out of 17),
leading to variations in the values of the key variables com-
monly extracted from these relationships (i.e., T0, C0, Copt, and
Pmax). The use of higher-order polynomials provided a better fit
of torque-cadence and power-cadence relationships and re-
vealed variations in the shapes of these relationships across
participants. Finally, the use of this modeling procedure re-
vealed that noncyclist participants tend to produce lower levels
of power on the right side of the power-cadence relationships.
Further studies are warranted to determine the shapes of the
torque- and power-cadence relationships in other populations
using the method presented in this article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the participants for their time and contribution to this study and
Andrew Stewart for helpful comments during the preparation of the manu-
script.
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
B.L.R., W.G.H., C.A.H., and D.M.R. conceived and designed research;
B.L.R. and D.M.R. performed experiments; B.L.R., W.G.H., and D.M.R.
analyzed data; B.L.R., W.G.H., C.A.H., and D.M.R. interpreted results of
experiments; B.L.R. and D.M.R. prepared figures; B.L.R., W.G.H., C.A.H.,
and D.M.R. drafted manuscript; B.L.R., W.G.H., C.A.H., and D.M.R. edited
and revised manuscript; B.L.R., W.G.H., C.A.H., and D.M.R. approved final
version of manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Arsac LM, Belli A, Lacour JR. Muscle function during brief maximal
exercise: accurate measurements on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer. Eur
J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74: 100 –106, 1996. doi:10.1007/
BF00376501.
2. Babault N, Pousson M, Ballay Y, Van Hoecke J. Activation of human
quadriceps femoris during isometric, concentric, and eccentric contrac-
tions. J Appl Physiol (1985) 91: 2628 –2634, 2001. doi:10.1152/jappl.
2001.91.6.2628.
3. Bernstein NA. The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movement. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon, 1967, p. 196.
4. Bobbert MF, Casius LJ, Van Soest AJ. The relationship between pedal
force and crank angular velocity in sprint cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc
48: 869 –878, 2016. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000845.
5. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988, p. 25–27.
6. Doré E, Duché P, Rouffet D, Ratel S, Bedu M, Van Praagh E.
Measurement error in short-term power testing in young people. J Sports
Sci 21: 135–142, 2003. doi:10.1080/0264041031000070868.
7. Dorel S, Couturier A, Lacour JR, Vandewalle H, Hautier C, Hug F.
Force-velocity relationship in cycling revisited: benefit of two-dimen-
sional pedal forces analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1174 –1183, 2010.
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c91f35.
8. Dorel S, Hautier CA, Rambaud O, Rouffet D, Van Praagh E, Lacour
JR, Bourdin M. Torque and power-velocity relationships in cycling:
relevance to track sprint performance in world-class cyclists. Int J Sports
Med 26: 739 –746, 2005. doi:10.1055/s-2004-830493.
9. Driss T, Vandewalle H. The measurement of maximal (anaerobic) power
output on a cycle ergometer: a critical review. BioMed Res Int 2013:
589361, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/589361.
10. Driss T, Vandewalle H, Le Chevalier JM, Monod H. Force-velocity
relationship on a cycle ergometer and knee-extensor strength indices. Can
J Appl Physiol 27: 250 –262, 2002. doi:10.1139/h02-015.
11. Gardner AS, Martin DT, Jenkins DG, Dyer I, Van Eiden J, Barras M,
Martin JC. Velocity-specific fatigue: quantifying fatigue during variable
velocity cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 904 –911, 2009. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e318190c2cc.
12. Gardner AS, Martin JC, Martin DT, Barras M, Jenkins DG. Maximal
torque- and power-pedaling rate relationships for elite sprint cyclists in
laboratory and field tests. Eur J Appl Physiol 101: 287–292, 2007.
doi:10.1007/s00421-007-0498-4.
13. Hamley EJ, Thomas V. Physiological and postural factors in the calibra-
tion of the bicycle ergometer. J Physiol 191: 55P–56P, 1967.
14. Hautier CA, Linossier MT, Belli A, Lacour JR, Arsac LM. Optimal
velocity for maximal power production in non-isokinetic cycling is related
to muscle fibre type composition. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74:
114 –118, 1996. doi:10.1007/BF00376503.
15. Hill AV. The heat of shortening and dynamics constants of muscles. Proc
R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 126: 136 –195, 1938. doi:10.1098/rspb.1938.0050.
16. Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trials with adjust-
ment for a predictor. Sportscience 10: 46 –50, 2006.
17. Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sport-
science 19: 36 –42, 2015.
18. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive
statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278.
19. Latash ML. The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not
redundancy). Exp Brain Res 217: 1–5, 2012. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-
3000-4.
20. Linossier MT, Dormois D, Fouquet R, Geyssant A, Denis C. Use of the
force-velocity test to determine the optimal braking force for a sprint
 FORCE-VELOCITY TEST: METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
exercise on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 74: 420 –427, 1996. doi:10.1007/BF02337722.
21. Martin JC, Diedrich D, Coyle EF. Time course of learning to produce
maximum cycling power. Int J Sports Med 21: 485–487, 2000. doi:10.
1055/s-2000-7415.
22. Martin JC, Wagner BM, Coyle EF. Inertial-load method determines
maximal cycling power in a single exercise bout. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:
1505–1512, 1997. doi:10.1097/00005768-199711000-00018.
23. McCartney N, Obminski G, Heigenhauser GJF. Torque-velocity rela-
tionship in isokinetic cycling exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985) 58: 1459 –
1462, 1985. doi:10.1152/jappl.1985.58.5.1459.
24. Müller H, Sternad D. Motor learning: changes in the structure of
variability in a redundant task. Adv Exp Med Biol 629: 439 –456, 2009.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_23.
25. O’Bryan SJ, Brown NA, Billaut F, Rouffet DM. Changes in muscle
coordination and power output during sprint cycling. Neurosci Lett 576:
11–16, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2014.05.023.
26. Perrine JJ, Edgerton VR. Muscle force-velocity and power-velocity
relationships under isokinetic loading. Med Sci Sports 10: 159 –166, 1978.
27. Raasch CC, Zajac FE, Ma B, Levine WS. Muscle coordination of
maximum-speed pedaling. J Biomech 30: 595–602, 1997. doi:10.1016/
S0021-9290(96)00188-1.
28. Ratel S, Bedu M, Hennegrave A, Doré E, Duché P. Effects of age and
recovery duration on peak power output during repeated cycling sprints.
Int J Sports Med 23: 397–402, 2002. doi:10.1055/s-2002-33737.
29. Robbins DW. Postactivation potentiation and its practical applicability: a
brief review. J Strength Cond Res 19: 453–458, 2005. doi:10.1519/R-
14653.1.
30. Rouffet DM, Hautier CA. EMG normalization to study muscle activation
in cycling. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18: 866 –878, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.
jelekin.2007.03.008.
31. Rouffet DM, Mornieux G, Zameziati K, Belli A, Hautier CA. Timing
of muscle activation of the lower limbs can be modulated to maintain a
constant pedaling cadence. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19: 1100 –1107, 2009.
doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.11.014.
32. Samozino P, Horvais N, Hintzy F. Why does power output decrease at
high pedaling rates during sprint cycling? Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:
680 –687, 2007. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3180315246.
33. Sargeant AJ, Hoinville E, Young A. Maximum leg force and power
output during short-term dynamic exercise. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ
Exerc Physiol 51: 1175–1182, 1981.
J Appl Physiol • doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00719.2017 • www.jappl.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (200.193.249.177) on January 10, 2023.
839
34. Schneider S, Rouffet DM, Billaut F, Strüder HK. Cortical current
density oscillations in the motor cortex are correlated with muscular
activity during pedaling exercise. Neuroscience 228: 309 –314, 2013.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.10.037.
35. Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Variability and predictability of finals times of
elite rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 2155–2160, 2011. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e31821d3f8e.
36. Taylor JL. Point: the interpolated twitch does/does not provide a valid
measure of the voluntary activation of muscle. J Appl Physiol (1985) 107:
354 –355, 2009. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.91220.2008.
37. Todd G, Gorman RB, Gandevia SC. Measurement and reproducibility
of strength and voluntary activation of lower-limb muscles. Muscle Nerve
29: 834 –842, 2004. doi:10.1002/mus.20027.
38. Todd G, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC. Measurement of voluntary acti-
vation of fresh and fatigued human muscles using transcranial mag-
netic stimulation. J Physiol 551: 661–671, 2003. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.
2003.044099.
39. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J, Monod H. Force-velocity
relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergometer. Correlation with
the height of a vertical jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 56:
650 –656, 1987. doi:10.1007/BF00424805.
40. van Ingen Schenau GJ. From rotation to translation: Constraints on
multi-joint movements and the unique action of bi-articular muscles. Hum
Mov Sci 8: 301–337, 1989. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(89)90037-7.
41. van Soest AJK, Casius LJR. Which factors determine the optimal
pedaling rate in sprint cycling? Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1927–1934,
2000. doi:10.1097/00005768-200011000-00017.
42. Wilkie DR. The relation between force and velocity in human muscle. J
Physiol 110: 249 –280, 1949. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1949.sp004437.
43. Wooles AL, Robinson AJ, Keen PS. A static method for obtaining a
calibration factor for SRM bicycle power cranks. Sports Eng 8: 137–144,
2005. doi:10.1007/BF02844014.
44. Yeo BK, Rouffet DM, Bonanno DR. Foot orthoses do not affect crank
power output during maximal exercise on a cycle-ergometer. J Sci Med
Sport 19: 368 –372, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2015.04.015.
45. Zajac FE, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Biomechanics and muscle coordina-
tion of human walking. Part I: introduction to concepts, power transfer,
dynamics and simulations. Gait Posture 16: 215–232, 2002. doi:10.1016/
S0966-6362(02)00068-1.