Comparison of Forward and Reverse Wingate Anaerobic Tests: A Brief Technical Note.

Journal of lifestyle medicine Pub Date : 2019-07-01 Epub Date: 2019-07-31 DOI:10.15280/jlm.2019.9.2.132
Joseph Berning, Trish Gail Sevene, Mark DeBeliso, Carole Carson, Chad Harris, Mike Climstein, Kent Jason Adams
{"title":"Comparison of Forward and Reverse Wingate Anaerobic Tests: A Brief Technical Note.","authors":"Joseph Berning,&nbsp;Trish Gail Sevene,&nbsp;Mark DeBeliso,&nbsp;Carole Carson,&nbsp;Chad Harris,&nbsp;Mike Climstein,&nbsp;Kent Jason Adams","doi":"10.15280/jlm.2019.9.2.132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Wingate anaerobic test (WAT) is traditionally performed in the forward pedaling direction on a cycle ergometer. However, reverse (backward) pedaling during a WAT test may be a novel way to convey meaningful information related to performance and rehabilitation. This study compared peak power measurements between 30-second forward pedaling WAT (FWAT) with a 30-second reverse pedaling WAT (RWAT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>10 male and 10 female participants (age 27.6 ± 7.31 yrs, mass 74.9 ± 21.3 kg and height 172.6 ± 10.9 cm) volunteered to participate. Participants performed one FWAT and one RWAT at 7.5% of body mass on a specially modified Monark cycle ergometer. Tests were separated 2 days of rest. Peak power output (PPO), mean power output (MPO), relative PPO (RPPO), relative MPO (RMPO), fatigue index (%FI), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FWAT power measurements were all significantly greater (p < 0.05) than RWAT power measurements except MPO (p > 0.05); and that RPE was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in FWAT than RWAT. Specifically, FWAT vs. RWAT (M ± SD) are as follows: PPO watts (w) = 731.7 ± 237.1 vs. 529.6 ± 192.2; RPPO w/kg = 10.2 ± 2.3 vs. 7.2 ± 1.6; MPO w = 510.2 ± 162.1 vs. 415.1 ± 146.2; RMPO w/kg = 7.3 ± 1.5 vs. 5.8 ± 1.3; %FI = 49.2 ± 8.7 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7; and RPE = 19.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15.8 ± 1.5. Gender did not impact the relative differences in these relationships.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Practitioners and clinicians may use this information to begin to understand the power and perceived exertion relationships of forward versus reverse pedaling during a WAT; exercise prescription for rehabilitation and performance may benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":73805,"journal":{"name":"Journal of lifestyle medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d7/cf/jlm-09-132.PMC6894445.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of lifestyle medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15280/jlm.2019.9.2.132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Wingate anaerobic test (WAT) is traditionally performed in the forward pedaling direction on a cycle ergometer. However, reverse (backward) pedaling during a WAT test may be a novel way to convey meaningful information related to performance and rehabilitation. This study compared peak power measurements between 30-second forward pedaling WAT (FWAT) with a 30-second reverse pedaling WAT (RWAT).

Methods: 10 male and 10 female participants (age 27.6 ± 7.31 yrs, mass 74.9 ± 21.3 kg and height 172.6 ± 10.9 cm) volunteered to participate. Participants performed one FWAT and one RWAT at 7.5% of body mass on a specially modified Monark cycle ergometer. Tests were separated 2 days of rest. Peak power output (PPO), mean power output (MPO), relative PPO (RPPO), relative MPO (RMPO), fatigue index (%FI), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured.

Results: The FWAT power measurements were all significantly greater (p < 0.05) than RWAT power measurements except MPO (p > 0.05); and that RPE was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in FWAT than RWAT. Specifically, FWAT vs. RWAT (M ± SD) are as follows: PPO watts (w) = 731.7 ± 237.1 vs. 529.6 ± 192.2; RPPO w/kg = 10.2 ± 2.3 vs. 7.2 ± 1.6; MPO w = 510.2 ± 162.1 vs. 415.1 ± 146.2; RMPO w/kg = 7.3 ± 1.5 vs. 5.8 ± 1.3; %FI = 49.2 ± 8.7 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7; and RPE = 19.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15.8 ± 1.5. Gender did not impact the relative differences in these relationships.

Conclusion: Practitioners and clinicians may use this information to begin to understand the power and perceived exertion relationships of forward versus reverse pedaling during a WAT; exercise prescription for rehabilitation and performance may benefit.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
温盖特正向和反向厌氧试验的比较:简要技术说明。
背景:温盖特厌氧测试(WAT)传统上是在自行车测力计上向前踩踏板的方向进行的。然而,在WAT测试期间反向(向后)踩踏板可能是一种传达与性能和康复有关的有意义信息的新方法。这项研究比较了30秒正踩WAT (FWAT)和30秒反踩WAT (RWAT)的峰值功率测量值。方法:男性10名,女性10名,年龄27.6±7.31岁,体重74.9±21.3 kg,身高172.6±10.9 cm。参与者在一个特殊改装的Monark自行车测力计上,以7.5%的体重进行一次FWAT和一次RWAT。试验分开休息2天。测量峰值输出功率(PPO)、平均输出功率(MPO)、相对输出功率(RPPO)、相对输出功率(RMPO)、疲劳指数(%FI)和感知消耗等级(RPE)。结果:除MPO外,FWAT功率测量值均显著高于RWAT功率测量值(p < 0.05);wat组RPE显著高于RWAT组(p < 0.05)。具体而言,FWAT vs. RWAT (M±SD)如下:PPO瓦(w) = 731.7±237.1 vs. 529.6±192.2;RPPO w/kg = 10.2±2.3 vs. 7.2±1.6;MPO w = 510.2±162.1 vs. 415.1±146.2;RMPO w/kg = 7.3±1.5 vs. 5.8±1.3;%FI = 49.2±8.7 vs. 37.4±13.7;RPE = 19.4±1.1∶15.8±1.5。性别对这些关系中的相对差异没有影响。结论:从业者和临床医生可以使用这些信息来开始理解WAT期间向前和反向踏板的力量和感知用力关系;运动处方对康复和表现可能有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adjunctive Approach to Therapeutic Laser and Exercise Therapies in Alleviating Pain and Disability in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. An Overview of the Naturopathic Medicine Protocol Used in Inpatient Yoga and Naturopathy Hospitals in India: The Prakriti Shakti Protocol. Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Stroke Rehabilitation in India: Addressing Gender Inequities. The Indian Geriatrics Quality of Life Inventory Scale (IGQOLI): Development and Validation of a Scale to Evaluate the Quality of Life among Geriatric Population of India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1