Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2014; 35(10): 835-839
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368789
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Determination of the Optimal Load Setting for Arm Crank Anaerobic Testing in Men and Women

S. C. Forbes
1   Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
,
M. D. Kennedy
1   Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
,
N. B. Boule
1   Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
,
G. Bell
2   Physical Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 16 January 2014

Publication Date:
15 April 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study compared different relative load factors for eliciting the highest peak 5 s and mean 30 s absolute power output (watts) during an arm crank 30 s Wingate anaerobic power test in 40 upper body trained and recreationally active men and women. The relative load factor of 0.075 kg · kg− 1 BM elicited a higher peak 5 s power output than 0.070 and 0.080 kg · kg− 1 for trained males, and 0.070 was higher than 0.055 and 0.080 kg · kg− 1 for active males (P<0.05). In trained women, the peak 5 s power output was greatest at 0.065 kg · kg− 1 and 0.060 kg · kg− 1 for active women. Mean 30 s power output at a relative load factor of 0.060, 0.065 and 0.070 kg · kg− 1 was higher than 0.080, 0.085 and 0.090 kg · kg− 1 in trained men, and mean power output at 0.080 kg · kg− 1 was lower than all other relative load factors in active men (P<0.05). Mean 30 s power was greatest at 0.050 kg · kg− 1 for trained and active women. In conclusion, the optimal relative load factor was different for eliciting peak 5 s and mean 30 s power outputs during an arm crank Wingate anaerobic test and depends on training status and gender.

Key words

ergometry - power output - fatigue
 

  • References

  • 1 Alves CR, Pasqua L, Artioli GG, Roschel H, Solis M, Tobias G, Klansener C, Bertuzzi R, Franchini E, Lancha Junior AH, Gualano B. Anthropometric, physiological, performance, and nutrition profile of the Brazil national canoe polo team. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Arslan C. Relationship between the 30-second Wingate test and characteristics of isometric and explosive leg strength in young subjects. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 658-666
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bar-Or O. The Wingate anaerobic test. An update on methodology, reliability and validity. Sports Med 1987; 4: 381-394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bloxham LA, Bell GJ, Bhambhani Y, Steadward RD. Time motion analysis and physiological profile of Canadian world cup wheelchair basketball players. Sports Med Train Rehabil 2001; 10: 183-198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bradley AL, Ball TE. The Wingate test: Effect of load on power outputs of female athletes and nonathletes. J Appl Sports Sci Res 1992; 6: 193-199
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Changela PK, Bhatt S. The correlation study of the vertical jump test and Wingate cycle test as a method to assess anaerobic power in high school basketball players. Int J Sci Res Pub 2012; 2: 1-6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dotan R, Bar-Or O. Load optimization for the Wingate anaerobic test. Eur J Appl Physiol 1983; 51: 409-417
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Esbjornsson M, Syven C, Holm I, Jansson E. Fast twitch fibres may predict anaerobic performance in both females and males. Int J Sports Med 1993; 14: 257-263
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Forbes SC, Kennedy MD, Bell GJ. Time-motion analysis, heart rate, and physiological characteristics of international canoe polo athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 2816-2822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1985; 10: 141-146
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sports and exercise science research: 2014 update. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 1025-1028
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hoffman JR, Epstein S, Einbinder M, Weinstein Y. The influence of aerobic capacity on anaerobic performance and recovery indices in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13: 407-411
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hoffman JR, Epstein S, Einbinder M, Weinstein Y. A comparison between the Wingate anaerobic power test to both vertical jump and line drill tests in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 261-264
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Inbar O, Bar-Or O, Skinner JS. The Wingate Anaerobic Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1996
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Jacobs I, Bar-Or O, Karlsson J, Dotan R, Tesch P, Kaiser P, Inbar O. Changes in muscle metabolites in females with 30-s exhaustive exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1982; 14: 457-460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lovell D, Kerr A, Wiegand A, Solomon C, Harvey L, McLellan C. The contribution of energy systems during the upper body Wingate anaerobic test. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2013; 38: 216-219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Mandic S, Quinney HA, Bell GJ. Modification of the Wingate anaerobic power test for rowing: optimization of the resistance setting. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25: 409-414
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Marsh GD, Paterson DH, Govindasamy D, Cunningham DA. Anaerobic power of the arms and legs of young and older men. Exp Physiol 1999; 84: 589-597
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Nindl BC, Mahar MT, Harman EA, Patton JF. Lower and upper body anaerobic performance in male and female adolescent athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 235-241
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Patton JF, Duggan A. Upper and lower body anaerobic power: comparison between biathletes and control subjects. Int J Sports Med 1987; 8: 94-98
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Patton JF, Murphy MM, Frederick FA. Maximal power outputs during the Wingate anaerobic test. Int J Sports Med 1985; 6: 82-85
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Reilly T, Bayley K. The relation between short-term power output and sprint performance of young female swimmers. J Hum Movement Stud 1988; 14: 19-29
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Smith JC, Hill DW. Contribution of energy systems during a Wingate power test. Br J Sports Med 1991; 25: 196-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Swaine I, Winter E. Comparison of cardiopulmonary responses to two types of dry-land upper body exercise testing modes in competitive swimmers. Eur J Appl Physiol 1999; 80: 588-590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Ucok K, Gokbel H, Okudan N. The load for the Wingate test: according to the body weight or lean body mass. Eur J Gen Med 2005; 2: 10-13
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Vandewalle H, Peres G, Monod H. Standard anaerobic exercise tests. Sports Med 1987; 4: 268-289
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Weber CL, Chia M, Inbar O. Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms and legs – a scaling issue. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 129-137
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Winter EM, Brown D, Roberts NKA, Brookes FBC, Swaine IL. Optimized and corrected peak power output during friction braked cycle ergometer. J Sports Sci 1996; 14: 513-521
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar