Influence of Cycle Ergometer Type and Sex on Assessment of 30-Second Anaerobic Capacity and Power

Abstract

This study examined the influence of cycle ergometer type and sex on assessment of 30-s anaerobic capacity and power. 41 healthy adults performed a 30-s anaerobic cycle test using a mechanically- (ME) and air-braked (AE) ergometer in a randomised order, approximately 7 days apart. Peak heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion were similar between tests with peak HR greater for females compared to males (187.0±9.1 vs. 180.8±9.9 bpm, p<0.05). Peak power (1 100±330 vs. 802±225 W), mean power (793±223 vs. 587±156 W) and total work (23.8±6.7 vs. 17.6±4.7 kJ) were greater for AE compared to ME (p<0.001) and greater for males compared to females (p<0.001). The mean difference for anaerobic capacity and power between AE and ME were similar for males and females (37–41% vs. 33–35%, p>0.05). Peak lactate was greater for AE compared to ME (16.1±3.4 vs. 14.8±2.9 mmol·L⁻¹; p<0.05) and greater for males compared to females (16.2±3.5 vs. 14.6±2.7 mmol·L⁻¹; p<0.05). The current study demonstrated that anaerobic power and capacity were substantially greater when assessed using AE compared to the traditional ME with the difference between ergometer types unaffected by sex. Ergometer type should be considered when comparing anaerobic results across populations and/or studies.

Key words

exercise test - ergometry - gender - Wingate test - all-out - cycling performance

References

• 1 Bishop D, Spencer M, Duffield R, Lawrence S. The validity of a repeated sprint ability test.  J Sci Med Sport. 2001;  4 19-29
• 2 Bogdanis G, Papaspyrou A, Lakomy H, Nevill M. Effects of inertia correction and resistive load on fatigue during repeated sprints on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer.  J Sports Sci. 2008;  26 1437-1445
• 3 Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;  14 377-381
• 4 Bushman B, Masterson G, Nelsen J. Anaerobic power performance and the menstrual cycle: eumenorrheic and oral contraceptive users.  J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2006;  46 132-137
• 5 Dotan R, Bar-Or O. Load optimization for the Wingate Anaerobic Test.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1983;  51 409-417
• 6 Evans JA, Quinney HA. Determination of resistance settings for anaerobic power testing.  Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1981;  6 53-56
• 7 Franklin KL, Gordon RS, Davies B, Baker JS. Assessing accuracy of measurements for a Wingate Test using the Taguchi method.  Res Sports Med. 2008;  16 1-14
• 8 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. International Journal of Sports Medicine – Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research.  Int J Sports Med. 2009;  30 701-702
• 9 Hazell TJ, Macpherson RE, Gravelle BM, Lemon PW. 10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;  110 153-160
• 10 Hill DW, Smith JC. Gender difference in anaerobic capacity: role of aerobic contribution.  Br J Sports Med. 1993;  27 45-48
• 11 Inbar O, Bar-Or O, Skinner JS. The Wingate Anaerobic Test. Champaign, USA: Human Kinetics; 1996
• 12 Masterson G. The impact of menstrual phases on anaerobic power performance in collegiate women.  J Strength Cond Res. 1999;  13 325-329
• 13 Maxwell BF, Withers RT, Ilsley AH, Wakim MJ, Woods GF, Day L. Dynamic calibration of mechanically, air- and electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1998;  78 346-352
• 14 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
• 15 Morton AR, Pyke FS, Roberts AD. A comparison of work capacity scores using two different types of bicycle ergometers.  Aust J Sports Med. 1974;  5 27-30
• 16 Patton JF, Murphy MM, Frederick FA. Maximal power outputs during the Wingate anaerobic test.  Int J Sports Med. 1985;  6 82-85
• 17 Reiser 2nd RF, Broker JP, Peterson ML. Inertial effects on mechanically braked Wingate power calculations.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;  32 1660-1664
• 18 Reiser 2nd RF, Maines JM, Eisenmann JC, Wilkinson JG. Standing and seated Wingate protocols in human cycling. A comparison of standard parameters.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;  88 152-157
• 19 Repco Cycle Company. .Repco Fitness Products Exertech Super-Monitor Instruction Manual. Huntingdale, Australia: Repco Cycle Company;
• 20 Sands WA, McNeal JR, Ochi MT, Urbanek TL, Jemni M, Stone MH. Comparison of the Wingate and Bosco anaerobic tests.  J Strength Cond Res. 2004;  18 810-815
• 21 Souissi N, Gauthier A, Sesboue B, Larue J, Davenne D. Circadian rhythms in two types of anaerobic cycle leg exercise: force-velocity and 30-s Wingate tests.  Int J Sports Med. 2004;  25 14-19
• 22 Telford RD. Specific performance analysis with air-braked ergometers. Part II: Short duration work and power.  J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1982;  22 349-357
• 23 Telford RD, Hooper LA, Chennells MHD. Calibration and comparison of air-braked and mechanically-braked bicycle ergometers.  Aust J Sports Med. 1980;  12 40-46
• 24 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
• 25 Withers RT, Sherman WM, Clark DG, Esselbach PC, Nolan SR, Mackay MH, Brinkman M. Muscle metabolism during 30, 60 and 90 s of maximal cycling on an air-braked ergometer.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 1991;  63 354-362
• 26 Zagatto AM, Beck WR, Gobatto CA. Validity of the running anaerobic sprint test for assessing anaerobic power and predicting short-distance performances.  J Strength Cond Res. 2009;  23 1820-1827
• 27 Zupan MF, Arata AW, Dawson LH, Wile AL, Payn TL, Hannon ME. Wingate Anaerobic Test peak power and anaerobic capacity classifications for men and women intercollegiate athletes.  J Strength Cond Res. 2009;  23 2598-2604

Correspondence