Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 96(6):748-51EJ

Abstract

Performance and metabolic profiles of the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) were compared between a mechanically resisted (ME) and an electro-magnetically braked (EE) cycle ergometer. Fifteen healthy subjects (24.0+/-3.5 years, 180.5+/-6.1 cm, 75.4+/-11.9 kg) performed a WAnT on ME, and EE 3 days apart. Performance was measured as peak power (PP), minimum power (MP), mean power (AP), time to PP (TTPP), fatigue rate (FR), and maximum cadence (RPM(MAX)). Lactic (W (LAC)) and alactic (W (PCR)) anaerobic energy were calculated from net lactate appearance and the fast component of post-exercise oxygen uptake. Aerobic metabolism (W (AER)) was calculated from oxygen uptake during the WAnT. Total energy cost (W (TOT)) was calculated as the sum of W (LAC), W (PCR), and W (AER). There was no difference between ME and EE in PP (873+/-159 vs. 931+/-193 W) or AP (633+/-89 vs. 630+/-89 W). In the EE condition TTPP (2.3+/-0.7 vs. 4.3+/-0.7 s) was longer (P<0.001), MP (464+/-78 vs. 388+/-57 W) was lower (P<0.001), FR (15.2+/-5.2 vs. 20.5+/-6.8%) was higher (P<0.005), and RPM(MAX) (168+/-18 vs. 128+/-15 rpm) was slower (P<0.001). There was no difference in W (TOT) (1,331+/-182 vs. 1,373+/-120 J kg(-1)), W (AER) (292+/-76 vs. 309+/-72 J kg(-1)), W (PCR) (495+/-153 vs. 515+/-111 J kg(-1)) or W (LAC) (545+/-132 vs. 549+/-141 J kg(-1)) between ME and EE devices. The EE produces distinctly different performance measures but valid metabolic WAnT results that may be used to evaluate anaerobic fitness.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ Colchester, England. dpmick@essex.ac.ukNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16468058

Citation

Micklewright, D, et al. "Mechanically Versus Electro-magnetically Braked Cycle Ergometer: Performance and Energy Cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test." European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 96, no. 6, 2006, pp. 748-51.
Micklewright D, Alkhatib A, Beneke R. Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(6):748-51.
Micklewright, D., Alkhatib, A., & Beneke, R. (2006). Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 96(6), pp. 748-51.
Micklewright D, Alkhatib A, Beneke R. Mechanically Versus Electro-magnetically Braked Cycle Ergometer: Performance and Energy Cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(6):748-51. PubMed PMID: 16468058.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. AU - Micklewright,D, AU - Alkhatib,A, AU - Beneke,R, Y1 - 2006/02/09/ PY - 2006/01/11/accepted PY - 2006/2/10/pubmed PY - 2006/9/1/medline PY - 2006/2/10/entrez SP - 748 EP - 51 JF - European journal of applied physiology JO - Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. VL - 96 IS - 6 N2 - Performance and metabolic profiles of the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) were compared between a mechanically resisted (ME) and an electro-magnetically braked (EE) cycle ergometer. Fifteen healthy subjects (24.0+/-3.5 years, 180.5+/-6.1 cm, 75.4+/-11.9 kg) performed a WAnT on ME, and EE 3 days apart. Performance was measured as peak power (PP), minimum power (MP), mean power (AP), time to PP (TTPP), fatigue rate (FR), and maximum cadence (RPM(MAX)). Lactic (W (LAC)) and alactic (W (PCR)) anaerobic energy were calculated from net lactate appearance and the fast component of post-exercise oxygen uptake. Aerobic metabolism (W (AER)) was calculated from oxygen uptake during the WAnT. Total energy cost (W (TOT)) was calculated as the sum of W (LAC), W (PCR), and W (AER). There was no difference between ME and EE in PP (873+/-159 vs. 931+/-193 W) or AP (633+/-89 vs. 630+/-89 W). In the EE condition TTPP (2.3+/-0.7 vs. 4.3+/-0.7 s) was longer (P<0.001), MP (464+/-78 vs. 388+/-57 W) was lower (P<0.001), FR (15.2+/-5.2 vs. 20.5+/-6.8%) was higher (P<0.005), and RPM(MAX) (168+/-18 vs. 128+/-15 rpm) was slower (P<0.001). There was no difference in W (TOT) (1,331+/-182 vs. 1,373+/-120 J kg(-1)), W (AER) (292+/-76 vs. 309+/-72 J kg(-1)), W (PCR) (495+/-153 vs. 515+/-111 J kg(-1)) or W (LAC) (545+/-132 vs. 549+/-141 J kg(-1)) between ME and EE devices. The EE produces distinctly different performance measures but valid metabolic WAnT results that may be used to evaluate anaerobic fitness. SN - 1439-6319 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16468058/Mechanically_versus_electro_magnetically_braked_cycle_ergometer:_performance_and_energy_cost_of_the_Wingate_Anaerobic_Test_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-006-0145-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -