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

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.