Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms and legs--a scaling issue

Allometric scaling of Wingate anaerobic powertest scores in women

In this study, we developed allometric exponents for scaling Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) power data that are effective in controlling for body mass (BM) and lean body mass (LBM) and established a normative WAnT data set for college-age women. One hundred women completed a standard WAnT Allometric exponents and percentile ranks for peak (PP) and mean power (MP) were established. Allometric exponents were applied to WAnT scores for an independent sample (n=31) to assess external validity. PP and MP were 477.0 W (SD = 80.0) and 372.6 W (SD = 61.5), respectively. Allometrice exponents for PP and MP scaled for BM were b = 0.92 and b = 0.76, respectively, and for LBM they were b = 0.93 and b = 0.91, respectively. In the independent sample, these exponents produced correlations between allometrically scaled PP and MP and BM of r = -.02 and r = .02, respectively. Correlations between allometrically scaled PP and MP and LBM were r = .004 and r = -.02, respectively. The allometric exponents were effective in partialing out the effect of BM for PP and MP and demonstrated acceptable levels of external validity when applied to an independent sample. The allometric exponents and normative values provide a useful tool for comparing WAnT scores in college-age women without the confounding effects of BM or LBM.

Analysis of anaerobic capacity in rowers using Wingate test on cycle and rowing ergometer

The 30-s all-out Wingate test has been used in athletes of all sport specialties to measure the capacity for short duration, high power output while cycling. The aim of this study was to establish differences in measuring anaerobic capacity between the classic Wingate test on a cycling ergometer and the modified Wingate test on a rowing ergometer in rowers. A group of 20 rowers was tested by both the cycle and rowing ergometers during 30s of maximum power to test anaerobic capacity and to make correlation between these tests. The parameters measured were the peak power and mean power. The peak power on the cycling ergometer was 475?75.1W and 522.4?81W (p<0.05) on the rowing ergometer. The mean power on the cycling ergometer and the rowing ergometer was 344.4?51.1W and 473.7W?67.2, (p<0.05) respectively. The maximum values were achieved at the same time on both ergometers, but remained on the higher level till the end of the test on the rowing ergometer. By correlating the anaerobic parameters of the classic Wingate test and a modified Wingate test on the rowing ergometer a significant positive correlation was detected in the peak power (r=0.63, p<0.05) as well as in the mean power (r=0.65, p<0.05). The results show that the rowers achieved better results of the anaerobic parameters on the rowing ergometer compared to the cycling ergometer due to a better mechanical efficiency. It is concluded that the modified Wingate test on the rowing ergometer can be used in rowers for testing their anaerobic capacity as a sport specific test ergometer since it provides more precise results.

The energetics of human walking: is Froude number (Fr) useful for metabolic comparisons?

Velocity and body mass have well-known influences on the amount of metabolic energy that animals require to walk. This relationship could stem from the fact that both are key variables in calculating the mechanical energy of a system in motion. Other variables, like leg length, are also important in mechanical energy calculations and two mechanical formulations that incorporate leg length, Froude number (Fr) and the LiMb model, have been shown to correlate with human metabolic energy expenditure. Both, however, include velocity as a key variable in their calculations, so we wondered if the correlation might derive solely from their relationship with velocity rather than leg length. Using the energetic data and gait parameters from 24 human adults and 48 children, we tested several variables - velocity (V), V(2), body mass, leg length, Fr and LiMb - to see which combinations best explained the variation in oxygen consumption, a proxy of metabolic energy expenditure. An equation with V(2), body mass and leg length as covariates produced the highest R(2), explaining 88% of the variation when all subjects were combined. No significant differences in the predictive power of velocity, V(2), Fr or LiMb were detected, prompting us to conclude that neither Fr nor LiMb compensate for the effect of leg length. Leg length does influence the energetic expenditure of walking humans, but Fr and LiMb do not appear to adequately reflect that effect. The development of another method to compensate for the effect of leg length on metabolic energy consumption is essential.

Strength training improves supramaximal cycling but not anaerobic capacity

This study examined supramaximal cycling performed to exhaustion at 120% of peak O(2) uptake (120% VO(2)peak) before and after 8 weeks of strength training. Eight previously untrained men completed 8 weeks of leg-strength training 3 days week(-1) on a hack-squat machine; four sets, five repetitions at 85% of one repetition maximum each session. Anaerobic capacity was quantified by determining the maximal accumulated O(2) deficit during supramaximal cycling. After 8 weeks of strength training, one repetition maximum for the hack squat significantly increased by 90 +/- 33% when compared to before training. However, 8 weeks of strength training did not increase the maximal accumulated O(2) deficit. Nevertheless, after 8 weeks of strength training, there was a significant increase in time to exhaustion for cycling at 120% VO(2)peak. The increase in time to exhaustion after 8 weeks of strength training was accompanied by a significant increase in accumulated O(2) uptake. In conclusion, 8 weeks of strength training improves supramaximal cycling performance in previously untrained subjects. However, increases in time to exhaustion for supramaximal cycling following strength training are associated with an increase in the contribution of the aerobic energy system rather than an improvement in anaerobic capacity.