Mechanically braked Wingate powers: agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement

被引:20
作者
Balmer, J
Bird, SR
Davison, RCR
Doherty, M
Smith, PM
机构
[1] Univ Luton, Dept Sport Exercise & Biomed Sci, Luton LU1 3JU, Beds, England
[2] Liverpool Hope Univ Coll, Deanery Sci & Social Sci, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[3] Victoria Univ Technol, Ctr Rehabil Exercise & Sport Sci, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia
[4] Univ Portsmouth, Dept Exercise & Sport Sci, Portsmouth, Hants, England
关键词
arm cranking; maximal intensity exercise;
D O I
10.1080/02640410310001655831
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
In this study, we assessed the agreement between the powers recorded during a 30 s upper-body Wingate test using three different methods. Fifty-six men completed a single test on a Monark 814E mechanically braked ergometer fitted with a Schoberer Rad Messtechnik (SRM) powermeter. A commercial software package (Wingate test kit version 2.21, Cranlea, UK) was used to calculate conventional and corrected (with accelerative forces) values of power based on a resistive load (5% body mass) and flywheel velocity. The SRM calculated powers based on torque (measured at the crank arm) and crank rate. Values for peak 1 and 5 s power and mean 30 s power were measured. No significant differences (P >0.05) were found between the three methods for 30 s power values. However, the corrected values for peak 1 and 5 s power were 36 and 23% higher (P <0.05) respectively than those for the conventional method, and 27 and 16% higher (P <0.05) respectively than those for the SRM method. The conventional and SRM values for peak 1 and 5 s power were similar (P >0.05). Power values recorded using each method were influenced by sample time (P <0.05). Our results suggest that these three measures of power are similar when sampled over 30 s, but discrepancies occur when the sample time is reduced to either 1 or 5 s.
引用
收藏
页码:661 / 667
页数:7
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1985, J SPORTS SCI
[2]   Effect of oval sodium loading on high-intensity arm ergometry in college wrestlers [J].
Aschenbach, W ;
Ocel, J ;
Craft, L ;
Ward, C ;
Spangenburg, E ;
Williams, J .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2000, 32 (03) :669-675
[3]   Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine [J].
Atkinson, G ;
Nevill, AM .
SPORTS MEDICINE, 1998, 26 (04) :217-238
[4]   CORRECTING THE WINGATE TEST FOR CHANGES IN KINETIC-ENERGY OF THE ERGOMETER FLYWHEEL [J].
BASSETT, DR .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 1989, 10 (06) :446-449
[5]  
BIRD SR, 1997, POSITION STATEMENT P
[6]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[7]  
COUTTS KD, 1987, MED SCI SPORT EXER, V19, P62
[8]   RESPONSES TO SUBMAXIMAL AND MAXIMAL ARM CYCLING ABOVE, AT, AND BELOW HEART LEVEL [J].
CUMMINS, TD ;
GLADDEN, LB .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 1983, 15 (04) :295-298
[9]   LOAD OPTIMIZATION FOR THE WINGATE ANAEROBIC TEST [J].
DOTAN, R ;
BAROR, O .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY AND OCCUPATIONAL PHYSIOLOGY, 1983, 51 (03) :409-417
[10]  
GUILHERME L, 2000, J STRENGTH COND RES, V14, P395