Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan, GIH

Purpose: The para-cycling classification system, consisting of five classes (C1-C5) for bicycling (C5 athletes having least impairments), is mostly based on expert-opinion rather than scientific evidence. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in race performance between para-cycling classes. Methods: From official results of the men's 1 km time trials for classes C1-C5 of seven Union Cycliste Internationale World Championships and Paralympics, median race speed of the five fastest athletes in each class was calculated (n = 175). Para-cycling results were expressed as a percentage of able-bodied performance using race results from the same years (n = 35). To assess differences between consecutive classes, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Mann-Whitney U post hoc tests were performed, correcting for multiple testing (p < 0.013). Results: Para-cyclists in C1 reached 75% (median ± interquartile range = 44.8 ± 4.2 km/h) and in C5 90% (53.5 ± 2.9 km/h) of able-bodied race speed (59.4 ± 0.9 km/h). Median race speed between consecutive classes was significantly different (χ² = 142.6, p < 0.01), except for C4 (52.1 ± 2.8 km/h) and C5 (U = 447.0, p = 0.05). Conclusion: Current para-cycling classification does not clearly differentiate between classes with least impairments.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe current classification system is not evidence-based and does not clearly differentiate between relevant groups of para-cyclists.An evidence-based para-cycling classification system is essential for a fair and equitable competition.Fair competition will make it more interesting and increase participation.Para-cycling can inspire everyone with and even those without disabilities to be physically active.

OBJECTIVE: Para-cycling classification aims to generate fair competition by discriminating between levels of activity limitation. This study investigated the relationship between lower limb Manual Muscle Tests (MMT) with ratio-scaled measures of isometric and dynamic strength, and of the ratio-scaled measures with cycling performance.

DESIGN: Fifty-six para-cyclists (44 males, 12 females) with leg impairments performed isometric and dynamic strength tests: leg push and pull, and an all-out 20 s sprint. MMT results were obtained from the classification database (n = 21) and race speeds from time trials (n = 54).

RESULTS: Regression analyses showed significant associations of MMT with isometric push (R2 = .49), dynamic push (R2 = .35), and dynamic pull (R2 = .28). Isometric strength was significantly correlated with dynamic push (ρ = .63) and pull (ρ = .54). The isometric and dynamic tests were significantly associated with sprint power and race speed (R2 = .16-.50).

CONCLUSION: The modified MMT and ratio-scaled measures were significantly associated. The significant relation of isometric and dynamic strength with sprint power and race speed maps the impact of lower limb impairments on para-cycling performance. MMT and the isometric and dynamic measures show potential for use in para-cycling classification.

The current classification system in para-cycling needs to be investigated in order to comply with requirements of the International Paralympic Committee of providing evidence-based classification in all Paralympic sports. The aim was to investigate consensus on issues within the current para-cycling classification system and identify future research priorities within para-cycling classification.

Design:Three rounds of online questionnaires were sent to an international expert-panel (n=51, representing six continents) consisting of para-cyclists (n=27, 52.9%), para-cycling coaches and team managers (n=5, 9.8%), classifiers (n=8, 15.7%), para-sport researchers (n=5, 9.8%), and other roles in para-cycling (n=6, 11.7%). Each new round was based on the responses of the previous round.

Results:Consensus was reached on the following main issues: adjust current muscle strength assessment in classification (76%), redefine the minimum impairment criteria for the lower (97%) and upper (76%) body, athletes cycling with one leg should compete separately from athletes cycling with two legs (81%), athletes with musculoskeletal impairments should compete separately from athletes with coordination impairments (77%).

Conclusions:The panel’s views revealed directions to revise the para-cycling classification system, and that future para-cycling research should focus on leg muscle strength assessments, upper-body impairments, and the cut-off between bicycling and tricycling (C and T-divisions).