Cited by 167Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologySport Psychology and Performance

Guidelines to classify female subject groups in sport-science research

Decroix, Lieselot, De Pauw, Kevin, Foster, Carl, Meeusen, Romain·2016·International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Abstract

Aim: To review current cycling-related sport-science literature to formulate guidelines to classify female subject groups and to compare this classification system for female subject groups with the classification system for male subject groups. Methods: A database of 82 papers that described female subject groups containing information on preexperimental maximal cycle-protocol designs, terminology, biometrical and physiological parameters, and cycling experience was analyzed. Subject groups were divided into performance levels (PLs), according to the nomenclature. Body mass, body-mass index, maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max ), peak power output (PPO), and training status were compared between PLs and between female and male PLs. Results: Five female PLs were defined, representing untrained, active, trained, well-trained, and professional female subjects. VO 2max and PPO significantly increased with PL, except for PL3 and PL4 ( P < .01). For each PL, significant differences were observed in absolute and relative VO 2max and PPO between male and female subject groups. Relative VO 2max is the most cited parameter for female subject groups and is proposed as the principal parameter to classify the groups. Conclusion: This systematic review shows the large variety in the description of female subject groups in the existing literature. The authors propose a standardized preexperimental testing protocol and guidelines to classify female subject groups into 5 PLs based on relative VO 2max , relative PPO, training status, absolute VO 2max , and absolute PPO.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0153

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Decroix, L., De Pauw, K., Foster, C., & Meeusen, R.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Meeusen, Romain
Venue
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Published
2016-03
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
204-213
ISSN
  • 1555-0265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-0273
OpenAlex
W4240624835
Cited by
167
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
subject classification, cycling, VO2max, peak power, training status, sex differences, performance level, body mass index, body mass

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review