The Load Of The Wingate Test: According To The Body Weight Or Lean Body Mass?

Öz

-

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

The Load Of The Wingate Test: According To The Body Weight Or Lean Body Mass?

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine if it was more appropriate assignment of the load of the Wingate test according to the lean body mass in young males. Methods: Wingate tests were performed on a Monark cycle ergometer by using loads of 75, 85, 95 g.kg-1 for the body weight and 90, 100, 110 g.kg-1 for the lean body mass on 24 untrained young males. These loads were applied randomly to the participants. Pedal revolutions for every 5-second were counted during the test and the peak power, the mean power and the fatigue index were calculated. Results: The peak power outputs of the Wingate tests in which 100 and 110 g.kg-1 loads were used for the lean body mass were significantly higher than the peak power outputs obtained from the tests in which 75 g.kg-1 loads were used for the body weight. None of the mean power outputs obtained from the loads was significantly higher than the others. Conclusion: We concluded that assignment of the load of the Wingate test according to the lean body mass would be more appropriate in young males. 100 or 110 g.kg-1 loads for the lean body mass can be used as they result in significantly higher peak power outputs. Key words: Anaerobic performance, body fat percent, load optimization, supramaximal exercise, Wingate test, lean body mass.

Keywords

• Anaerobic performance, body fat percent, load optimization, supramaximal exercise, Wingate test, lean body mass

References

1. Bar-Or O. Testing of anaerobic performance by the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Bloomington: GRS Tech Publication; 1994
2. Green S. Measurement of anaerobic work capacities in humans. Sports Med 1995;19:32-42
3. Tharp GD, Newhouse RK, Uffelman L, Thorland WG, Johnson GO. Comparison of sprint and run times with performance on the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Res Q Exerc Sport 1985;56:73-6
4. Bar-Or O. The Wingate Anaerobic Test: An update on methodology, reliability and validity. Sports Med 1987;4:381-94
5. Williams CA. Children’s and adolescents’ anaerobic performance during cycle ergometry. Sports Med 1997;24:227-40
6. Bediz C, Gökbel H, Kara M et al. Comparison of the aerobic contributions to Wingate anaerobic tests performed with two different loads. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1998;38:30-4
7. Granier P, Mercier B, Mercier J, Anselme F, Prefaut C. Aerobic and anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in sprint and middle-distance runners. Eur J Appl Phys 1995;70:58-65
8. Horswill CA, Scott JR, Galea P. Comparison of maximum aerobic power, maximum anaerobic power, and skinfold thickness of elite and nonelite junior wrestlers. Int Sports Med 1989;10:165-8

9. De Ste Croix MBA, Armstrong N, Chia MYH et al. Changes in short-term power output in 10- to 12-year-olds. J Sports Sci 2001;19:141-8
10. Marsh GD, Paterson DH, Govindasamy D, Cunningham DA. Anaerobic power of the arms and legs of young and older men. Exp Physiol 1999;84:589-97
11. Parker DF, Carriere L, Hebestreit H, Bar-Or O. Anaerobic endurance and peak muscle power in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Am J Disabled Child 1992;146:1069-73
12. Counil F, Varray A, Karila C et al. Wingate test performance in children with asthma: Aerobic or anaerobic limitation? Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997;29:430-5
13. Van Mil E, Schoeber N, Calvert RE, Bar- Or O. Optimization of force in the Wingate test for children with a neuromuscular disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28: 1087-92
14. Inbar O, Ayalon A, Bar-Or O. Relationship between tests of anaerobic capacity and power. Isr J Med Sci 1974;10:290
15. Dotan R, Bar-Or O. Load optimization for the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol 1983;51:409-17
16. Patton JF, Murphy MM, Frederick FA. Maximal power outputs during the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Int Sports Med 1985;6:82-5
17. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Monod H. Standard anaerobic exercise tests. Sports Med 1987;4:268-89
18. Blimkie CJR, Roache P, Hay JT, Bar-Or O. Anaerobic power of arms in teenage boys and girls: Relationship to lean tissue. Eur J Appl Physiol 1988;57:677-83
19. Murphy MM, Patton JF, Frederick FA. Comparative anaerobic power of men and women. Aviat Space Environ Med 1986;57:636-41
20. Evans JA, Quinney HA. Determination of resistance settings for anaerobic power testing. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1981;6:53-6
21. LaVoie N, Dallaire J, Brayne S, Barrett D. Anaerobic testing using the Wingate and Evans-Quinney protocols with and without toe stirrups. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1984;9:1-5
22. Armstrong N, Welsman JR, Chia MYH. Short term power output in relation to growth and maturation. Brit J Sports Med 2001;35:118-24
23. Van Praagh E, Fellmann N, Bedu M, Falgariette G, Coudert J. Gender difference in the relationship of anaerobic power output to body composition in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 1990;2:336- 48
24. Beneke R, Pollmann C, Bleif I, Leithäuser RM, Hütler M. How anaerobic is the Wingate Anaerobic Test for humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;87:388-92
25. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Monod H. All out anaerobic capacity tests on cycle ergometers: A comparative study on men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol 1985;54:222-9
26. Patton J, Duggan A. An evaluation of tests of anaerobic power. Aviat Space Environ Med 1987;58:237-42