Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1998 March;38(1) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1998 March;38(1):30-4

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1998 March;38(1):30-4

Copyright © 1998 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

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


PDF


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.

top of page