REF-1286 · Decroix et al., 2016 · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · Paper · PubMed

Where does a female rider's VO2max or W/kg sit?

Decroix sorts female study groups into levels 1-5 by lab VO2max and graded-test peak power, apart from men's; bands not read, and labelled levels 3 and 4 did not differ significantly.

Main caveat: Read from the abstract only; the level bands, the search and the included papers could not be checked.
moderate evidenceMeasured on non-athletes to world-class athletes

Decroix, De Pauw, Foster and Meeusen built the female counterpart of the cycling classification system (REF-1285).

They analysed 82 papers that described female subject groups, extracting the pre-experimental maximal cycle-test design, the terms used, body mass, BMI, VO2max, peak power output (PPO), training status and cycling experience, and grouped the samples into performance levels by their nomenclature.

Five female levels emerged, representing untrained, active, trained, well-trained and professional women. VO2max and PPO increased significantly with level except between levels 3 and 4 (P < .01). At every level, absolute and relative VO2max and PPO differed significantly between female and male groups.

Relative VO2max was the parameter most cited for women and is proposed as the principal one; the classification uses relative VO2max, relative PPO, training status, absolute VO2max and absolute PPO, with a standardised pre-experimental test protocol.

Our reading: the only peer-reviewed calibre ladder for female cyclists, useful to read who was studied; the trained and well-trained rungs were not separated by VO2max or PPO, and the bands are research volunteers' lab values, not FTP, and were not read for this entry.

Protocol

Design: systematic review of cycling-related sport-science literature; a database of 82 papers describing female subject groups.
Data extracted (abstract): pre-experimental maximal cycle-protocol design, terminology, biometrical and physiological parameters (body mass, BMI, VO2max, PPO) and cycling experience; training status.
Analysis: samples divided into performance levels by their nomenclature; body mass, BMI, VO2max, PPO and training status compared between levels and between female and male levels.
Not in the abstract: databases and years searched, the numeric band of each level, the number of groups per level, the recommended test protocol in detail, and the statistics behind the comparisons.
Funding and interests: not in the abstract; Crossref names no funder, and PubMed names none but tags the paper "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't".

Key Results

Item (abstract)Finding
Levels5 female performance levels: untrained, active, trained, well-trained, professional
VO2max and PPO across levelsincreased significantly with level, except between levels 3 and 4 (P < .01)
Women vs menabsolute and relative VO2max and PPO differed significantly between female and male groups at every level
Principal parameterrelative VO2max, the most cited for female groups
Classification basisrelative VO2max, relative PPO, training status, absolute VO2max, absolute PPO
Numeric bands of each levelin the full-text tables, not read for this entry
An open point: the levels were first formed from the published samples' own labels, and between groups labelled trained (level 3) and well-trained (level 4) the rise in VO2max and PPO was not significant; whether the proposed bands (relative VO2max, relative PPO, training status) separate the two, as the male system's bands do on relative VO2max (REF-1285), is in the full text, not read.

Mechanisms

Measured: female research samples labelled at higher levels had higher VO2max and PPO, except between trained and well-trained; at each level women's values differed from men's.
Authors' interpretation: female subject groups are described in many different ways; a standardised testing protocol and sex-specific levels are needed, with relative VO2max as the principal marker.
Inference: the sex difference at each level means a woman cannot be placed on the male ladder; it is a statement about published samples, not a measured distribution of female cyclists.
Inference: fewer published studies of trained and well-trained women may explain why levels 3 and 4 did not separate; the abstract does not say.

Practical Application

Where does a female rider's VO2max or W/kg sit? Decroix sorts female study groups into levels 1-5 by lab VO2max and graded-test peak power, apart from men's; bands not read, and labelled levels 3 and 4 did not differ significantly.
Never place a woman on the male ladder: at every level the female values differed from the male ones (B+, from the abstract).
Use the levels to read studies of women; for an athlete's own calibre use McKay's tiers ([REF-529]). Not from this paper; the base's own practice: do not map an FTP or a watch VO2max onto these levels; a lab VO2max can be ranked against population norms by sex and mode (REF-1284).

Limitations

Read from the abstract only; the level bands, the search and the included papers could not be checked.
Descriptive data from published female research samples, which are fewer than male ones; the bands reflect who took part in studies, not female cyclists in general.
Laboratory measures only (VO2max, ramp-test PPO); not FTP or field power.
In the samples grouped by their labels, levels 3 and 4 did not differ significantly in VO2max or PPO; whether the proposed bands separate them was not read.
Hormonal status, menstrual phase and age distribution are not in the abstract.
Funding and conflicts of interest not in the abstract or the Crossref and PubMed records.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a systematic review of published descriptive data that sets a classification convention; it tests no intervention and no prediction. From the abstract (the full text is not open), so the numeric bands and the studies behind them could not be checked; in the published samples grouped by their own labels, the rise in VO2max and PPO from level 3 to level 4 was not significant (the abstract does not say whether absolute or relative VO2max)