Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2012; 33(03): 205-210
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291219
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reliability and Validity of the Velotron Racermate Cycle Ergometer to Measure Anaerobic Power

T. A. Astorino
1   California State University San Marcos, Kinesiology, San Marcos, CA, United States
,
T. Cottrell
1   California State University San Marcos, Kinesiology, San Marcos, CA, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 12 September 2011

Publication Date:
20 December 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study assessed the reliability and validity of the Velotron Racermate™ cycle ergometer to assess anaerobic power. Men (9 cyclists and 13 recreationally-active) and women (17 recreationally-active and 1 cyclist) (age=24.7±4.2 yr) performed 2 Wingate tests on the Velotron or 3 Wingate tests (2 on the Velotron and 1 on the Monark Peak Bike) over a 7–14 day period. Peak power, mean power, minimum power, fatigue index, heart rate, and peak and minimum cadence were assessed. Results revealed significant test-retest reliability for mean power (r=0.90, p<0.01), minimum power (r=0.79, p<0.05) and peak power (r=0.70, p<0.05) with repeated bouts on the Velotron. Peak power was significantly higher (p<0.05) on the Velotron (9.95±1.39 W/kg) vs. the Monark (9.13±1.26 W/kg); however, mean power was higher (p<0.05) on the Monark (6.95±0.89 W/kg) vs. the Velotron (6.11±0.52 W/kg and 6.25±0.59 W/kg). Data reveal significant reliability for mean and peak power from the Velotron Racermate, yet multiple variables differ between the Velotron and the Monark mechanically-braked cycle ergometer.

Key words

Wingate test - PCr - fatigue index - supramaximal exercise
 

  • References

  • 1 Dotan R. The Wingate anaerobic test’s past and future and the compatibility of mechanically braked versus electro-magnetically braked cycle-ergometers. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 98: 113-116
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Evans JA, Quinney HA. Determination of resistance settings for anaerobic power testing. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1981; 6: 53-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gibala M, McGee SL. Metabolic-adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain?. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 2008; 36: 58-63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Green JM, McLester JR, Smith JE, Mansfield ER. The effects of creatine supplementation on repeated upper- and lower-body Wingate performance. J Str Cond Res 2001; 15: 36-41
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Greer F, Morales J, Coles M. Wingate performance and surface EMG frequency variables are not affected by caffeine ingestion. Appl Phys Nutr Metab 2006; 31: 597-603
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 472-485
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med 2001; 31: 211-234
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Inbar O, Bar-Or O, Skinner JS. The Wingate Anaerobic Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1996
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Jacobs I, Esbjornsson M, Sylven C, Holm I, Jansson E. Sprint training effects on muscle myoglobin, enzymes, fiber types, and blood lactate. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987; 19: 368-374
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Leicht AS, Sealey RM, Sinclair WH. Influence of cycle ergometer type and sex on assessment of 30-s anaerobic capacity and power. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 688-692
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Maud PJ, Shultz BB. Norms for the Wingate Anaerobic Test with comparison to another similar test. Res Q Exerc Sport 1989; 60: 144-151
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Micklewright D, Alkhatib A, Beneke R. Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 96: 748-751
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Minahan C, Chia M, Inbar O. Does power indicate capacity? 30-s Wingate Anaerobic Test vs. maximally accumulated oxygen deficit. Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 836-843
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Patton JF, Murphy MM, Frederick MA. Maximal power outputs during the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Int J Sports Med 1985; 6: 82-85
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Reiser RF, Broker JP, Peterson ML. Inertial effects on mechanically braked Wingate power calculations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1660-1664
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Santos EL, Novaes JS, Reis VM, Giannella-Neto A. Low sampling rates bias outcomes from the Wingate Test. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 784-789
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Scott C, Roby F, Lohman T, Bunt J. The maximally accumulated oxygen deficit as an indicator of anaerobic capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23: 618-624
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Sporer BC, McKenzie DC. Reproducibility of a lab-based 20-km time trial evaluation in competitive cyclists using the Velotron Pro ergo­meter. Int J Sports Med 2008; 28: 940-944
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar