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.

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.

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 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.

The aim of this study was to determine the aerobic contribution to upper body and lower body Wingate Anaerobic tests (WAnT). Eight nonspecifically trained males volunteered to take part in this study. Participants undertook incremental exercise tests for peak oxygen uptake and two 30-s WAnT (habituation and experimental) for both the upper and lower body. The resistive loadings used were 0.040 and 0.075 kg·kg body mass(-1), respectively. Peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO) were calculated for each WAnT. The aerobic contribution of each WAnT was assessed using breath by breath expired gas analysis. Peak oxygen uptake was lower for the upper body when compared with the lower body (P = 0.001). Similarly, PPO and MPO were greater for the lower body (both P < 0.001). Absolute oxygen uptake during the upper body WAnT was lower than for the lower body (P = 0.013), whereas relative oxygen uptake (% peak oxygen uptake) was similar (P = 0.997). The mean aerobic contribution for the upper body WAnT (43.5% ± 29.3%) was greater than for the lower body (29.4% ± 15.8%; P < 0.001). The greater aerobic contribution to the WAnT observed for the upper body in comparison with the lower body is likely due to methodological differences in upper and lower body WAnT protocols and potentially differences in anaerobic power production and exercise efficiency. The results of this study suggest that differences may exist for the aerobic contribution of upper and lower body Wingate anaerobic tests.

2002Aug
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2002 Aug 28;87(4-5):388-92. Epub 2002 May 28.

The Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) is generally used to evaluate anaerobic cycling performance, but knowledge of the metabolic profile of WAnT is limited. Therefore the energetics of WAnT was analysed with respect to working efficiency and performance. A group of 11 male subjects [mean (SD), age 21.6 (3.8) years, height 178.6 (6.6) cm, body mass 82.2 (12.1) kg] performed a maximal incremental exercise test and a WAnT. Lactic and alactic anaerobic energy outputs were calculated from net lactate production and the fast component of the kinetics of post-exercise oxygen uptake. Aerobic metabolism was determined from oxygen uptake during exercise. The WAnT mean power of 683 (96.0) W resulted from a total energy output above the value at rest of 128.1 (23.2) kJ x 30 s(-1) [mean metabolic power=4.3 (0.8) kW] corresponding to a working efficiency of 16.2 (1.6)%. The WAnT working efficiency was lower (P < 0.01) than the corresponding value of 24.1 (1.7)% at 362 (41) W at the end of an incremental exercise test. During WAnT the fractions of the energy from aerobic, anaerobic alactic and lactic acid metabolism were 18.6 (2.5)%, 31.1 (4.6)%, and 50.3 (5.1)%, respectively. Energy from metabolism of anaerobic lactic acid explained 83% and 81% of the variance of WAnT peak and mean power, respectively. The results indicate firstly that WAnT requires the use of more anaerobically derived energy than previously estimated, secondly that anaerobic metabolism is dominated by glycolysis, thirdly that WAnT mechanical efficiency is lower than that found in aerobic exercise tests, and fourthly that the latter finding partly explains discrepancies between previously published and the present data about the metabolic profile of WAnT.


Research and Laboratory Jobs in Ashburn
View All Jobs

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.