J Strength Cond Res 2014 Mar;28(3):643-50
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.
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.