ORIGINAL RESEARCH
1 SAJSM VOL. 32 NO. 1 2020
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) International License
An evaluation of bicycle-specific agility and reaction times in
mountain bikers and road cyclists
K Buchholtz,1,2 MPhil Sports Physiotherapy,
T L Burgess,3,4 PhD Exercise Science, MHSc Bioethics,
BSc Physiotherapy
1 Department of Physiotherapy, LUNEX University, Luxembourg
2 Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Faculty of Health
Sciences, University of Cape Town
3 Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape
Town
4 Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
Corresponding author: K Buchholtz
(kim.buchholtz@lunex- university.net)
Cycling is a popular recreational and
competitive sport for people of all ages and has
seen increases in participation worldwide.
Johnson et al. identified an 11% increase in the
cycling population of Australia from 2001 to 2007, and similar
general trends have been observed in the United States of
America and Europe [1]. In South Africa, there are over 16 000
members registered with the Pedal Power Association, an
association for recreational cyclists.
There are many health benefits to cycling whether as a sport
for leisure, or as a means of transport. These benefits include
improved cardiovascular endurance, greater muscle fitness,
improved bone health, prevention of weight gain, and a lower
risk of heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure [2]. Despite
all these benefits, cycling poses an injury risk due to its physical
nature and exposure to external factors such as vehicles and
obstacles [3].
Aleman and Meyers estimate that 85% of cyclists are injured
during the cycling season in both mountain and road cycling [4].
The most common mechanisms of acute injury in mountain
biking are falls related to a loss of control of the bicycle, while
road cyclists report collisions with other vehicles and bicycles
[1,4]. Cycling takes place in dynamic environments, thus there
are several factors which are related to the risk of injury.
Excessive fatigue, low level of cycling experience,
inappropriate or improperly adjusted equipment, terrain, and
conditioning and fitness levels are all factors that may increase
a cyclist's injury risk [4].
One of these factors is reaction time (RT) [1]. Johnson et al.
found a significant association between cyclist RT, a post-event
(post-collision or near collision with car) manoeuver, and the
severity of this incident between cyclists and car drivers [1].
There are multiple types of RT, including simple, choice and
discrimination. Simple RT is a single response to a single
stimulus, and choice RT is a correct response to multiple
random stimuli [5]. Discriminatory or recognition RT is a correct
response to multiple stimuli after determining whether a
response is appropriate [5]. Reaction time is affected by age, sex,
physical activity and fatigue [6].
Previous studies have investigated the associations between
reaction time and other variables during sport. Moradi and
Esmaeilzadeh assessed speed, agility and reaction time and
found that agility in schoolboys correlates with quicker RT [7].
Intensity of the physical activity or the level of cognitive
‘arousal’ has also been linked to a faster RT [5]. Skilled
sportspersons have better cognitive function and quicker RT
during submaximal physical activity [8]. However, there is
limited literature on reaction time and agility in cycling
specifically, which warrants further investigation. The aim of
this study was to evaluate bicycle-specific agility and reaction
times in mountain bikers and road cyclists at different
intensities of cycling.
Methods
Study design
This is a descriptive cross-sectional study.
Participants
Thirty-five healthy male and female mountain bikers and road
cyclists aged 18 to 69 years, who cycled a minimum of four
Background: Cycling is a popular recreational and competitive
sport with many health benefits but also significant risks, with
85% of recreational cyclists reporting an injury each season. The
most common mechanism of injury is through a loss of control
of the bicycle, and collisions with other objects. Reaction time
and agility in cyclists may contribute to the ability to control a
bicycle.
Objectives: To evaluate bicycle-specific agility and reaction
time in cyclists.
Methods: The study was a cross-sectional observational study.
Thirty-five cyclists (27 males, eight females) participated in this
study. Participants attended a single testing session where they
completed a bicycle-specific agility test, and online simple and
choice reaction time testing while cycling at three different
exercise intensities.
Results: There was a significant difference in agility between
males and females (p=0.01). There was also a significant
difference in choice reaction time between cycling at ‘light’ and
‘very hard’ intensities (p=0.004), and a significant positive
relationship between agility and simple reaction time at a ‘hard’
intensity.
Discussion: Choice reaction time improved at ‘very hard’
cycling intensity, supporting the theory that increased exercise
intensity improves cognitive arousal. This reaction time may be
essential as a means to avoid collisions and falls from bicycles.
Bicycle-specific agility appears to be related to simple reaction
time, but there are no existing validated bicycle-specific agility
tests available. The value of the tests undertaken by the authors
needs to be assessed further.
Conclusion: Choice reaction time was significantly decreased in
high intensity cycling compared to cycling at low intensities.
Further prospective studies are needed to establish links
between reaction times and bicycle-specific agility.
Keywords: exercise intensity, performance, bicycling
S Afr J Sports Med 2020;32:1-5. DOI: 10.17159/2078-516X/2020/v32i1a8576
mailto:kim.buchholtz@lunex-%20university.net
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2078-516X/2020/v32i1a8576
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9796-2182
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1976-345X
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
SAJSM VOL. 32 NO. 1 2020 2
hours per week over the past six months were recruited for
this study. Participants were excluded if they reported any
musculoskeletal injury in the six weeks prior to the study, or
if they were considered to be high risk for physical activity on
the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) [9].
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of
Cape Town (HREC REF: 210/2017). The study adhered to the
ethical principles outlined by the Declaration of Helsinki
(Fortaleza, Brazil, 2013).
Procedure
Participants attended a single testing session at the Sports
Science Institute of South Africa, Cape Town. Prior to
inclusion in the study, they completed an informed consent
form and the PAR-Q to assess for risk of adverse effects from
physical activity [9]. Once accepted into the study, the
participants completed a self-developed questionnaire to
assess their demographic and training history. The
questionnaire was assessed before use in this study by a panel
of experts for construct and content validity. Visual acuity
was screened using a Snellen visual acuity chart to ensure
sufficient vision to complete the testing. Body mass (kg),
stature (m) and waist circumference (cm) were recorded, and
body mass index (BMI) was calculated as kg/m2.
A modified Illinois Agility Test (IAT) was used to assess
bicycle-specific agility (Fig. 1) [10]. Participants were instructed
to cycle around cones on the floor as laid out in Fig. 1, as
quickly as possible. The time was recorded in seconds. The
test was terminated if participants stopped at any point
during the test to regain balance, or if they placed a foot on
the ground. Participants were allowed two practice runs of the
test to ensure familiarity with the test. Participants completed
the test three times, and the fastest time was recorded for
analysis.
Reaction time was assessed at different intensities of
exercise using a protocol previously described by Delignières
et al. [8]. The reaction time tests were conducted using an
online programme (EyeGym) created by Dr Sherylle Calder to
measure simple RT (SRT) and choice RT (CRT) through visual
stimuli [11]. In these tests, participants responded to an image
appearing on a screen (Fig. 2). In the simple reaction time task,
the participant responded as quickly as possible to a single
item appearing on the screen. For choice reaction time, the
participant would have multiple images on the screen but
responded only to a single image, ignoring all the others. The
reliability and validity of this online programme has not been
previously established but is similar to the study by
Delignières et al. who used joysticks to react to a stimulus on
a computer screen [8]. Reaction time was assessed with
participants cycling on a Wattbike (Wattbike Ltd,
Nottingham, United Kingdom) stationary trainer. The
Wattbike was set up based on each individual participant’s
height and comfort. A laptop was placed at eye level in front
of the Wattbike and a keyboard placed on the handlebars.
Participants were instructed to cycle at three different
intensities using the modified Borg Scale to determine the
intensities. Participants warmed up for five minutes at an RPE
of six (‘very, very light’ intensity). Simple RT and CRT were
assessed at RPE levels of 11 (‘fairly light’), 15 (‘hard’) and 18
(‘very hard’). Participants cycled at each level for 10 minutes.
Simple RT and CRT were assessed for five minutes into each
level of intensity. Participants completed three SRT and CRT
tests at each intensity, and the fastest SRT and CRT were
recorded. Cadence and wattage were monitored during the test
as an indication of effort between stages, but not used in
analysis as the Wattbikes were not regularly calibrated.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistical analyses were performed on the
anthropometric data. Shapiro-Wilkes tests were performed for
normality. Agility and reaction time results were found to be
not normally distributed, and non-parametric tests were
performed on these variables. T-tests were performed to assess
differences between descriptive characteristics in male and
female groups. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to
assess the difference between agility and reaction between male
and female cyclists. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to
assess differences between the road cycling, mountain biking
and both groups. No post-hoc tests were performed as there
were no significant results. A Friedman’s ANOVA was
performed with Wilcoxon signed rank test to determine the
difference between RT at different intensities of cycling.
Fig. 1. Modified Illinois Agility test (adapted from Raya et al, 2013) [10]
Fig. 2. Screenshot of the reaction time programme
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
3 SAJSM VOL. 32 NO. 1 2020
Associations between variables were assessed
using a Spearman’s correlational analysis.
Statistical significance was accepted as p < 0.05.
Results
Thirty-five participants completed the testing
protocol. Their descriptive characteristics are
reported in Table 1. Body mass, stature and
waist circumference were significantly greater
in male participants (p<0.05).
The mean years cycled was 21±13 years. The
average distance cycled per week was 150±109
km. Eight participants were road cyclists
(23%), two participants were mountain bikers
(6%) and 21 participants cycled in both
disciplines (60%). Four participants did not
complete the questionnaire section on the
cycling discipline. Individual results for
simple and choice reaction time at light, hard
and very hard intensities for males and
females are presented in Fig. 3.
There were no significant differences in SRT
or CRT between sexes (Table 2). There was a
significant difference in agility between males
and females (U=46.0, p=0.01) (Table 2). There
were no significant differences in SRT at
different intensities of cycling for all
participants (Table 3); however, there was a
significant difference between CRT at different
intensities (ANOVA chi-sq=10.93, p=0.004).
With the use of post-hoc testing, this difference
was identified between CRT at ‘light’ intensity
and ‘very hard’ intensity (Z=3.23, p=0.004), but
not between ‘light’ and ‘hard’, or ‘hard’ and
‘very hard’ intensities.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of male and female participants
Variable
Male
(n=27)
Female
(n=8)
t-value p-value
Age (years) 44.3±16.8 43.1±14.2 0.16 0.875
Body mass (kg) 81.5±14.8 61.4±14.3 3.32 0.0002*
Stature (cm) 177.5±7.0 163.4±7.3 4.95 0.0002*
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.7±3.9 22.9±4.3 1.75 0.089
Waist circumference (cm) 87.4±10.1 74.4±8.7 3.20 0.004*
Data are expressed as mean ± SD. * indicates p<0.05.
Table 2. Results of a Mann-Whitney U test comparing agility and reaction time scores between male and female participants
Variable Group N Median (IQR) Sum of U-value p-value
Agility
Male 27 29.2 (27.2-32.1) 425
46.0 0.01*
Female 8 33.7 (32.1-37.0) 206
Simple Reaction: light intensity
Male 27 0.37 (0.36-0.40) 451
72.5 0.16
Female 8 0.42 (0.37-0.45) 180
Simple Reaction: hard intensity
Male 27 0.39 (0.36-0.41) 463
84.5 0.37
Female 8 0.42 (0.37-0.44) 168
Simple Reaction: very hard intensity
Male 27 0.37 (0.36-0.43) 470
92.0 0.54
Female 8 0.41 (0.36-0.45) 160
Choice Reaction: light intensity
Male 27 0.47 (0.46-0.52) 477
98.5 0.72
Female 8 0.48 (0.46-0.54) 154
Choice Reaction: hard intensity
Male 27 0.48 (0.44-0.51) 488
106.5 0.96
Female 8 0.48 (0.45-0.51) 143
Choice Reaction: very hard intensity
Male 27 0.45 (0.41-0.51) 497
97.0 0.68
Female 8 0.44 (0.41-0.50) 133
Data are presented as median (interquartile range). * indicates p<0.05.
Fig. 3. Individual results of simple and choice reaction time at light, hard and very
hard intensities in males and females
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
SAJSM VOL. 32 NO. 1 2020 4
There was significant, but weak positive correlation
between bicycle-specific agility and SRT at a ‘hard
intensity’ (r=0.38, p=0.026). There were no other significant
relationships between RT and agility (Table 4).
Discussion
Sex-related differences in bicycle-specific agility scores were
consistent with findings observed using standard Illinois
agility tests in other studies [12]. Agility is a complex task
incorporating acceleration, deceleration, change of direction
and decision-making [13]. Reasons for sex-related differences
may include greater muscle mass, greater aerobic capacity
and higher anaerobic thresholds as a consequence of genetic
and hormonal differences [14].
In this study, the authors did not observe any sex-related
differences in SRT and CRT contrary to the findings in
multiple studies as reported by Kosinsky [5]. This is most likely
due to the small number of females in the study. The authors
identified a significant reduction in CRT at ‘very high’ levels
of cycling intensity compared to ‘light’ intensity. Reaction
time has been found to improve with intermediate levels of
arousal, and to be lower when either too relaxed or too tense
in other studies [5]. Submaximal levels of physical activity
create the optimal arousal levels required for maximal
cognitive functioning and potentially, RT [15]. Previous
research has demonstrated improvements in choice RT for up
to eight minutes after exercise [5].
This study identified significant positive relationships
between bicycle-specific agility and STR at a ‘hard’ intensity.
This is supported by Moradi and Esmaeilzadeh who found
significant associations between running agility and SRT [7].
Bicycle-specific agility differs in that it has an additional piece
of equipment with different capabilities in terms of change of
direction and which has not as yet been investigated as a valid
clinical assessment.
Limitations
During testing, it was noted that the keyboards used for RT
testing lacked the sensitivity needed in fast physical testing.
The same keyboards were used throughout the study, which
may have provided limited potential equipment bias. Thus,
the results may not be as accurate as required to adequately
assess reaction time. The reaction time tests have not been
previously validated, and this should be a priority in further
research using these tests. The small participant groups when
analysing results between males and females and between the
types of cycling may have limited the statistical power in these
results.
Conclusion
Choice RT was significantly improved in response to high
intensity cycling compared to the low intensities. Quicker SRT
was related to faster bicycle-specific agility performance.
Further prospective studies are needed to establish links
between reaction times, bicycle-specific agility and control of
the bicycle in cyclists.
Conflict of interest and source of funding: The authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest and no source of funding.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge
the contribution of the undergraduate researchers involved in
collecting the data used in this study, namely, Louise Hichens,
Sikhonangenkosi (S’kho) Ngcobo and Samantha Rule.
Author contributions:
KB conceived the idea, analysed the data and wrote the final
manuscript. TB conceived the idea, assisted with data analysis
and reviewing of the manuscript. Both authors reviewed the
final manuscript before submission.
References
1. Johnson M, Charlton J, Oxley J, et al. Naturalistic cycling study:
identifying risk factors for on-road commuter cyclists. Ann
Adv Automot Med 2010;54:275–283. [PMID: 21050610]
2. Andersen LB, Riiser A, Rutter HR, et al. Trends in cycling and
cycle related injuries and a calculation of prevented morbidity
and mortality. J Transp Health 2018;9:217–225. [doi:
10.1016/j.jth.2018.02.009]
3. Oja P, Titze S, Bauman A, et al. Health benefits of cycling: a
systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sport 2011;21(4):496–509.
[doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01299.x] [PMID: 21496106]
4. Aleman KB, Meyers MC. Mountain biking injuries in children
and adolescents. Sporst Med 2010;40(1):77–90. [doi:
10.2165/11319640-000000000-00000] [PMID: 20020788]
Table 3. Relationship between simple and choice reaction time at light, hard and very hard intensities, with post hoc testing
Friedman’s ANOVA Dunn’s post hoc
Friedman
statistic
p-value
Light vs. hard
(z-value)
p-value
Light vs. very
hard (z-value)
p-value
Hard vs. very
hard (z-value)
p-value
SRT 1.44 0.488 - - - - - -
CRT 10.93 0.004 1.434 0.455 3.227 0.0038* 1.793 0.219
* indicates p<0.05. SRT, simple reaction time; CRT, choice reaction time.
Table 4. Correlations between agility and simple and choice reaction
time at light, hard and very hard intensities
Variable r-value p-value
Simple Reaction: light intensity -0.06 0.748
Simple Reaction: hard intensity 0.38 0.026*
Simple Reaction: very hard intensity 0.31 0.067
Choice Reaction: light intensity 0.13 0.456
Choice Reaction: hard intensity 0.33 0.055
Choice Reaction: very hard intensity 0.27 0.123
* indicates p<0.05.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
5 SAJSM VOL. 32 NO. 1 2020
5. Kosinsky RJ. A literature review on reaction time. Clemson
University, 2013; 4p. Available from:
https://img.sauf.ca/pictures/2015-06-
09/a78f336ed69f1bee126e609a30d8349d.pdf
6. Ashnagar Z, Shadmehr A, Jalaei S. The effects of acute bout
of cycling on auditory & visual reaction times. J Bodyw Mov
Ther 2015;19(2):268–272. [doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2014.05.003]
[PMID: 25892382]
7. Moradi A, Esmaeilzadeh S. Association between reaction
time, speed and agility in schoolboys. Sport Sci Health
2015;11(3):251–256. [doi: 10.1007/s11332-015-0230-4] [PMID:
30621232]
8. Delignières D, Brisswalter J, Legros P. Influence of physical
exercise on choice reaction time in sports experts: the
mediating role of resources allocation. J Hum Mov Stud 1994;
27(4):173–188.
9. Adams R. Revised Physical Activity Readiness
Questionnaire. Can Fam Physician. 1999;45:992-1005.
10. Raya MA, Gailey RS, Gaunaurd IA, et al. Comparison of three
agility tests with male servicemembers: Edgren Side Step
Test, T-Test, and Illinois Agility Test. J Rehabil Res Dev
2013;50(7):951–960. [doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2012.05.0096] [PMID:
24301432]
11. Calder SL, Kluka DA. The efficacy of eyethinksport training
software programme on South African high school cricketers.
Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance 2009;15(1):44–61.
[http://doi.org/10.4314/ajpherd.v15i1.44637]
12. Mujika I, Santisteban J, Impellizzeri FM, et al. Fitness
determinants of success in men’s and women’s football. J Sport
Sci 2009;27(2):107-114.
[http://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802428071] [PMID: 19058090]
13. Simonek J, Horicka P, Hianik J. Differences in pre-planned
agility and reactive agility performance in sport games. Acta
Gymnica 2016;46(2):68–73. [http://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2016.006]
14. Maldonado-Martín S, Mujika I, Padilla S. Physiological
variables to use in the gender comparison in highly trained
runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2004;44(1):8–14. [PMID:
15181384]
15. Ozyemisci-taskiran O, Gunendi Z, Bolukbasi N, et al.. The
effect of a single session submaximal aerobic exercise on
premotor fraction of reaction time: an electromyographic
study. Clin Biomech(Bristol, Avon 2008;23(2):231–235.
[doi; 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.027] [PMID: 17961893]
16. Carmont MR. Mountain biking injuries: a review. Br Med
Bull2008;85(1):101–112. [doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldn009]
[PMID18296453]
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.4314%2Fajpherd.v15i1.44637?_sg%5B0%5D=867oMMEssXkVu1N5NsSeBvX1n4uUnqjU9-lTIkIhHZJEn3xqco5u9qZxKtzYVlYZWlBA-3oIAIdeWKfOXG_SL_SjCQ.pIUTYPSoXia_b-LeUQz9ZZYKWMDfRvmKvr0iSTDjDLRjqzhXFiHHXm_L4IeuD3lq9NLLYVzZ2sQGtuJ_L5shAg