Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1998 March;38(1):30-4
Comparison of the aerobic contributions to Wingate anaerobic tests performed with two different loads
Bediz C. S. 1, Gokbel H. 1, Kara M. 2, Ucok K. 3, Cikrikci E. 1, Ergene N. 1
1 Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey;
2 Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Yüzüncü, Yıl University, Van, Turkey;
3 School of Physical Education and Sports, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey
Background. The purpose of the present study was to compare the aerobic contribution of the Wingate anaerobic test by increasing the test load and power output.
Methods. Setting: The study was performed in the Physiology Department of the Faculty of Medicine, Selçuk University.
Participants: Thirty sedentary male university students volunteered to this study. Experiments: The subjects performed two Wingate tests against resistance of 75 g·kg-1 and 95 g·kg-1 body weight on Monark 818E bicycle ergometer. Breath-by-breath oxygen consumption rates were measured using an automated metabolic measurement chart (Sensormedics 2900). Aerobic contribution was determined by dividing energy equivalence of net oxygen consumption to the total work.
Results. The mean total work values obtained from tests performed at 75 g·kg-1 and 95 g·kg-1 loads were 13.9±1.5 kjoules and 14.5±1.8 kjoules (t=2.32, p=0.03). Mean total oxygen consumptions were 765±105 ml and 770±110 ml, respectively (t=0.24, p=0.81). Assuming 20% mechanical efficiency for both tests, aerobic contributions were calculated as 19.5±3.7% and 18.9±3.7%, respectively (t=1.01, p=0.30).
Conclusions. Although the power outputs of the two tests were different, the difference between aerobic contributions was not statistically significant. So, it was failed to say that the increase in the power outputs might be related to higher contribution of anaerobic processes. However, if different mechanical efficiencies could be used, relationship between aerobic contributions of two tests might have been different.