Literature DB >> 8897394

Comparison of anaerobic components of the Wingate and Critical Power tests in males and females.

R Bulbulian1, J W Jeong, M Murphy.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to reexamine the relationship between the Wingate and Critical Power tests of anaerobic capacity (AC) and anaerobic reserve (AR), respectively. A second purpose was to observe gender differences. Both tests were administered to 16 female and 13 male subjects (N = 29) on a Monark cycle ergometer with six subjects repeating AR measurement. The results show that AC (240.2 +/- 30.5 J-kg-1, calculated from total work for 30 s) and AR (184.0 +/- 1.2 J.kg-1) were not well-correlated (r = 0.07, P > 0.72). When expressed as total energy independent of body mass, the relationship was significant but low (r = 0.41, P > 0.02). Since AR was 23% lower than AC, which is believed to underestimate true anaerobic capacity, the data suggest that the Critical Power and Wingate tests do not assess the same anaerobic compartments. AR from the Critical Power test may not include the energy component of anaerobic glycolysis. Therefore, intrinsic methodological and theoretical differences between the tests make the absolute comparison of AC and AR problematic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8897394     DOI: 10.1097/00005768-199610000-00020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131            Impact factor:   5.411


  8 in total

1.  Validity of the two-parameter model in estimating the anaerobic work capacity.

Authors:  J Dekerle; G Brickley; A J P Hammond; J S M Pringle; H Carter
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  A comparison of critical force and electromyographic fatigue threshold for isometric muscle actions of the forearm flexors.

Authors:  C Russell Hendrix; Terry J Housh; Glen O Johnson; Joseph P Weir; Travis W Beck; Moh H Malek; Michelle Mielke; Richard J Schmidt
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Assessment of short-distance breaststroke swimming performance with critical velocity.

Authors:  Daijiro Abe; Hiroaki Tokumaru; Shigemitsu Niihata; Satoshi Muraki; Yoshiyuki Fukuoka; Sachio Usui; Takayoshi Yoshida
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2006-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

4.  Anaerobic capacity may not be determined by critical power model in elite table tennis players.

Authors:  Alessandro M Zagatto; Marcelo Papoti; Claudio A Gobatto
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 5.  Reliability of power in physical performance tests.

Authors:  W G Hopkins; E J Schabort; J A Hawley
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 11.136

6.  Gender Differences and the Influence of Body Composition on Land and Pool-Based Assessments of Anaerobic Power and Capacity.

Authors:  Jacquelyn N Zera; Elizabeth F Nagle; Emma Connell; Erin Curtin; Wilmina Marget; Anna P Simonson; Takashi Nagai; John Abt; Scott Lephart
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Association between anaerobic components of the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit and 30-second Wingate test.

Authors:  R Bertuzzi; M A P D M Kiss; M Damasceno; R S F Oliveira; A E Lima-Silva
Journal:  Braz J Med Biol Res       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.590

Review 8.  Caveats and Recommendations to Assess the Validity and Reliability of Cycling Power Meters: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Authors:  Anthony Bouillod; Georges Soto-Romero; Frederic Grappe; William Bertucci; Emmanuel Brunet; Johan Cassirame
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 3.576

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.