An elliptical trainer may render the Wingate all-out test more anaerobic.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of the 3 main energy pathways during a 30-second elliptical all-out test (EAT) compared with the Wingate all-out test (WAT). Participants were 12 male team sport players (age, 20.3 ± 1.8 years; body mass, 74.8 ± 12.4 kg; height, 176.0 ± 9.10 cm; body fat, 12.1 ± 1.0%). Net energy outputs from the oxidative, phospholytic, and glycolytic energy systems were calculated from oxygen uptake data recorded during 30-second test, the fast component of postexercise oxygen uptake kinetics, and peak blood lactate concentration, respectively. In addition, mechanical power indices were calculated. The main results showed that compared with WAT, EAT was characterized by significantly lower absolute and relative contributions of the oxidative system (16.9 ± 2.5 J vs. 19.8 ± 4.9 J; p ≤ 0.05 and 11.2 ± 1.5% vs. 15.7 ± 3.28%; p ≤ 0.001). In addition, significantly greater absolute and relative contributions of the phospholytic system (66.1 ± 15.8 J vs. 50.7 ± 15.9 J; p ≤ 0.01 and 43.8 ± 6.62% vs. 39.1 ± 6.87%; p ≤ 0.05) and a significantly greater absolute contribution of the glycolytic system (68.6 ± 18.4 J vs. 57.4 ± 13.7 J; p ≤ 0.01) were observed in EAT compared with WAT. Finally, all power indices, except the fatigue index, were significantly greater in EAT than WAT (p ≤ 0.05). Because of the significantly lower aerobic contribution in EAT compared with WAT, elliptical trainers may be a good alternative to cycle ergometers to assess anaerobic performance in athletes involved in whole-body activities.

Affiliation

1Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey; 2Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ondokuz Mayis University, Atakum, Samsun, Turkey; and 3Department of Sport and Health Science, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Substances

Similar Publications

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of the 3 main energy pathways during a 30-second elliptical all-out test (EAT) compared with the Wingate all-out test (WAT). Participants were 12 male team sport players (age, 20.3 ± 1.8 years; body mass, 74.8 ± 12.4 kg; height, 176.0 ± 9.10 cm; body fat, 12.1 ± 1.0%). Net energy outputs from the oxidative, phospholytic, and glycolytic energy systems were calculated from oxygen uptake data recorded during 30-second test, the fast component of postexercise oxygen uptake kinetics, and peak blood lactate concentration, respectively. In addition, mechanical power indices were calculated. The main results showed that compared with WAT, EAT was characterized by significantly lower absolute and relative contributions of the oxidative system (16.9 ± 2.5 J vs. 19.8 ± 4.9 J; p ≤ 0.05 and 11.2 ± 1.5% vs. 15.7 ± 3.28%; p ≤ 0.001). In addition, significantly greater absolute and relative contributions of the phospholytic system (66.1 ± 15.8 J vs. 50.7 ± 15.9 J; p ≤ 0.01 and 43.8 ± 6.62% vs. 39.1 ± 6.87%; p ≤ 0.05) and a significantly greater absolute contribution of the glycolytic system (68.6 ± 18.4 J vs. 57.4 ± 13.7 J; p ≤ 0.01) were observed in EAT compared with WAT. Finally, all power indices, except the fatigue index, were significantly greater in EAT than WAT (p ≤ 0.05). Because of the significantly lower aerobic contribution in EAT compared with WAT, elliptical trainers may be a good alternative to cycle ergometers to assess anaerobic performance in athletes involved in whole-body activities.

The 30-second, all-out Wingate test evaluates anaerobic performance using an upper or lower body cycle ergometer (cycle Wingate test). A recent study showed that using a modified electromagnetically braked elliptical trainer for Wingate testing (EWT) leads to greater power outcomes because of larger muscle group recruitment. The main purpose of this study was to modify an elliptical trainer using an easily understandable mechanical brake system instead of an electromagnetically braked modification. Our secondary aim was to determine a proper test load for the EWT to reveal the most efficient anaerobic test outcomes such as peak power (PP), average power (AP), minimum power (MP), power drop (PD), and fatigue index ratio (FI%) and to evaluate the retest reliability of the selected test load. Delta lactate responses (ΔLa) were also analyzed to confirm all the anaerobic performance of the athletes. Thirty healthy and well-trained male university athletes were selected to participate in the study. By analysis of variance, an 18% body mass workload yielded significantly greater test outcomes (PP = 19.5 ± 2.4 W·kg, AP = 13.7 ± 1.7 W·kg, PD = 27.9 ± 5 W·s, FI% = 58.4 ± 3.3%, and ΔLa = 15.4 ± 1.7 mM) than the other (12-24% body mass) tested loads (p < 0.05). Test and retest results for relative PP, AP, MP, PD, FI%, and ΔLa were highly correlated (r = 0.97, 0.98, 0.94, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.95, respectively). In conclusion, it was found that the mechanically braked modification of an elliptical trainer successfully estimated anaerobic power and capacity. A workload of 18% body mass was optimal for measuring maximal and reliable anaerobic power outcomes. Anaerobic testing using an EWT may be more useful to athletes and coaches than traditional cycle ergometers because a greater proportion of muscle groups are worked during exercise on an elliptical trainer.

2013Oct

The Wingate all-out test (WAT) is commonly used to estimate anaerobic capabilities of athletes by using an upper or lower body cycle ergometer, however, a new test modality called elliptical all-out test (EAT) which measures activated whole-body locomotor tasks has recently been proposed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the familiarization effects of a 30-s EAT versus WAT. Twenty male trained athletes performed pre-familiarization (Trial- I), post-familiarization (Trial-II) and retest of Trial-II (Trial-III) sessions on both cycle ergometer and elliptical trainer. Peak power (PP), average power (AP), power drop (PD) and fatigue index ratio (FI%) were analyzed using student's t-test for paired samples and correlated by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Moreover, an error detection procedure was administered using data attained from illogical interrelations among 5-s segments of 30-s tests. The main results showed that there were significant familiarization effects in all mechanical power outputs obtained from Trial-I and Trial-II in both EAT (ICC = 0.49-0.55) and WAT (ICC = 0.50-0.57) performances (p ≤ 0.01). Significant segmental disorders were detected in power production during Trial-I of EAT, however, none existed in any of test trails in the WAT (p ≤ 0.001). After familiarization sessions, reliability coefficients between Trial-II and Trial-III showed moderate to strong-level agreements for both EAT (ICC = 0.74-0.91) and the WAT (ICC=0.76-0.93). Our results suggested that prior to the performance tests, combination of a well designed familiarization session with one full all-out test administration is necessary to estimate the least moderately reliable and accurate test indices for both WAT and EAT. Key PointsA well designed familiarization session, and then, one additional all-out test administration, several days prior to main test, is suggested to estimate more accurate and reliable retest correlations for both cycling and elliptical all-out test modalities.Because of greater muscle recruitment and different movement pattern, familiarization seems more effective for a 30-s all-out test performed on an elliptical trainer compared to a cycle ergometer.

The Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) has been established as an effective tool in measuring both muscular power and anaerobic capacity in a 30-second time period; however, there are no published normative tables by which to compare WAnT performance in men and women intercollegiate athletics. The purpose of this study was to develop a classification system for anaerobic peak power and anaerobic capacity for men and women National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I college athletes using the WAnT. A total of 1,585 (1,374 men and 211 women) tests were conducted on athletes ranging from the ages of 18 to 25 years using the WAnT. Absolute and relative peak power and anaerobic capacity data were recorded. One-half standard deviations were used to set up a 7-tier classification system (poor to elite) for these assessments. These classifications can be used by athletes, coaches, and practitioners to evaluate anaerobic peak power and anaerobic capacity in their athletes.

We use a new approach to the estimation of energy expenditure for resistance training involving nonsteady state measures of work (weight × displacement), exercise O2 uptake, blood lactate, and recovery O2 uptake; all lifts were performed to muscular failure. Our intent was to estimate and compare absolute and relative aerobic and anaerobic exercise energy expenditure and recovery energy expenditure. Single-set bench press lifts of ∼ 37, ∼ 46, and ∼ 56% (muscular endurance-type exercise) along with 70, 80, and 90% (strength-type exercise) of a 1 repetition maximum were performed. Collectively, the muscular endurance lifts resulted in larger total energy expenditure (60.2 ± 14.5 kJ) as compared with the strength lifts (43.2 ± 12.5 kJ) (p = 0.001). Overall work also was greater for muscular endurance (462 ± 131 J) as opposed to strength (253 ± 93 J) (p = 0.001); overall work and energy expenditure were related (r = 0.87, p = 0.001). Anaerobic exercise and recovery energy expenditure were significantly larger for all strength lifts as compared with aerobic exercise energy expenditure (p < 0.001). For the muscular endurance lifts, anaerobic energy expenditure was larger than recovery energy expenditure (p < 0.001) that in turn was larger than aerobic exercise energy expenditure (p < 0.001). We conclude that for a single set of resistance training to fatigue, the anaerobic and recovery energy expenditure contributions can be significantly larger than aerobic energy expenditure during the exercise. To our surprise, recovery energy expenditure was similar both within strength and muscular-endurance protocols and between protocols; moreover, recovery energy expenditure had little to no relationship with aerobic and anaerobic exercise energy expenditure or work.


Affiliation Details

  • 1Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey; 2Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ondokuz Mayis University, Atakum, Samsun, Turkey; and 3Department of Sport and Health Science, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • 1Coaching Education Department
Affiliation 1Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey; 2Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ondokuz Mayis University, Atakum, Samsun, Turkey; and 3Department of Sport and Health Science, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford, United Kingdom.