The interests and limits of the different methods and protocols of maximal (anaerobic) power (Pmax) assessment are reviewed: single all-out tests versus force-velocity tests, isokinetic ergometers versus friction-loaded ergometers, measure of Pmax during the acceleration phase or at peak velocity. The effects of training, athletic practice, diet and pharmacological substances upon the production of maximal mechanical power are not discussed in this review mainly focused on the technical (ergometer, crank length, toe clips), methodological (protocols) and biological factors (muscle volume, muscle fiber type, age, gender, growth, temperature, chronobiology and fatigue) limiting Pmax in cycling. Although the validity of the Wingate test is questionable, a large part of the review is dedicated to this test which is currently the all-out cycling test the most often used. The biomechanical characteristics specific of maximal and high speed cycling, the bioenergetics of the all-out cycling exercises and the influence of biochemical factors (acidosis and alkalosis, phosphate ions…) are recalled at the beginning of the paper. The basic knowledge concerning the consequences of the force-velocity relationship upon power output, the biomechanics of sub-maximal cycling exercises and the study on the force-velocity relationship in cycling by Dickinson in 1928 are presented in Appendices.

/pdf/the-measurement-of-maximal-anaerobic-power-output-on-a-cycle-4fph17qw8i.pdf

The Measurement of Maximal (Anaerobic) Power Output on a Cycle Ergometer: A Critical Review

We investigated the aerobic and anaerobic contributions to performance during the Wingate test in sprint and middle-distance runners and whether they were related to the peak aerobic and anaerobic performances determined by two commonly used tests: the force-velocity test and an incremental aerobic exercise test. A group of 14 male competitive runners participated: 7 sprinters, aged 20.7 (SEM 1.3) years, competing in 50, 100 and 200-m events and 7 middle-distance runners, aged 20.0 (SEM 1.0) years, competing in 800, 1,000 and 1,500 m-events. The oxygen uptake (
 
$$\dot V{\text{O}}_{\text{2}} $$

 ) was recorded breath-by-breath during the test (30 s) and during the first 20 s of recovery. Blood samples for venous plasma lactate concentrations were drawn at rest before the start of the test and during the 20-min recovery period. During the Wingate test mean power (
 
$$\dot W$$

 ) was determined and three values of mechanical efficiency, one individual and two arbitrary, 16% and 25%, were used to calculate the contributions of work by aerobic (
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,ind,16%,25%) and anaerobic (
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,ind,16%,25%) processes. Peak anaerobic power (
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,peak) was estimated by the force-velocity test and maximal aerobic energy expenditure (
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,peak) was determined during an incremental aerobic exercise test. During the Wingate test, the middle-distance runners had a significantly greater
 
$$\dot V{\text{O}}_{\text{2}} $$

 than the sprinters (P < 0.001), who had significantly greater venous plasma lactate concentrations (P < 0.001). Moreover,
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,ind,16%,25% were also significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the middle-distance runners [
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,ind 45 (SEM 4) % vs 28 (SEM 2) %;
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,16% 30 (SEM 3) % vs 19 (SEM 2) %;
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,25% 46 (SEM 3) % vs 29 (SEM 2)%];
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,ind,16%,25% in the sprint runners (P < 0.05) [
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,ind 72 (SEM 3) % vs 55 (SEM 4) %;
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,16% 81 (SEM 2) % vs 70 (SEM 3) %;
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,25% 71 (SEM 2) % vs 54 (SEM 3) %]. The
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,ind/
 
$$\dot W$$

 
aer,peak and
 
$$\dot W$$

 ×
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,ind/
 
$$\dot W$$

 
an,peak ratios, however, were not significantly different between the two groups of athletes. These results would indicate that the sprinters and middle-distance runners used preferentially a metabolic system according to their speciality. Nevertheless, under the conditions of its experiment, they seemed to rely on the same percentage of both peak anaerobic and peak aerobic performance for a given exercise task.

Aerobic and anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in sprint and middle-distance runners.

This study examined the effects of Ramadan fasting on anaerobic performances and their diurnal fluctuations. In a balanced and randomized study design, 12 subjects were measured for maximal power (P(max); force-velocity test), peak power (P(peak)), and mean power (P(mean)) with the Wingate test at 07:00, 17:00, and 21:00 h on four different occasions: one week before Ramadan (BR), the second week of Ramadan (SWR), the fourth week of Ramadan (ER), and two weeks after Ramadan (AR). There was an interval of 28 h between any two successive tests. Oral temperature was measured before each test. Under each condition, the results showed a time-of-day effect on oral temperature. Analysis of variance revealed a significant (Ramadanxtime-of-day of test) interaction effect on P(max). This variable improved significantly from morning to evening before Ramadan (1.1+/-0.2 W x kg(-1)), during the second week of Ramadan (0.6+/-0.2 W x kg(-1)), and two weeks after the end of Ramadan (0.9+/-0.2 W x kg(-1)). However, daily fluctuations disappeared during the fourth week of Ramadan. For P(peak) and P(mean), there was no significant Ramadan x test-time interaction. These variables improved significantly from morning to evening before Ramadan ([1+/-0.3 W x kg(-1)] for P(peak) and [1.7+/-1.6 W x kg(-1)] for P(mean)) and in the second week of Ramadan ([0.9+/-0.6 W x kg(-1)] for P(peak) and [1.7+/-1.5 W x kg(-1)] for P(mean)). However, they were not affected by time-of-day in the fourth week of Ramadan. Considering the effect of Ramadan on anaerobic performances, in comparison with before Ramadan, no significant difference was observed during Ramadan at 07:00 h. The variables were significantly lower in the second week of Ramadan and in the fourth week of Ramadan at 17:00 h and 21:00 h. P(mean) was not affected during the second week of Ramadan. In conclusion, the time-of-day effect on anaerobic power variables tends to disappear during Ramadan. In comparison with the period before Ramadan, anaerobic performances were unaffected in the morning but impaired in the evening during Ramadan.

Effect of Ramadan on the diurnal variation in short-term high power output.

The 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (30-WAT) is the most widely accepted protocol for measuring anaerobic response, despite documented physical side effects. Abbreviation of the 30-WAT without loss of data could enhance subject compliance while maintaining test applicability. The intent of this study was to quantify the validity of the 20-s Wingate anaerobic test (20-WAT) versus the traditional 30-WAT. Fifty males (mean ± SEM; age = 20.5 ± 0.3 years; Ht = 1.6 ± 0.01 m; Wt = 75.5 ± 2.6 kg) were randomly selected to either a validation (N = 35) or cross-validation group (N = 15) and completed a 20-WAT and 30-WAT in double blind, random order on separate days to determine peak power (PP; W kg−1), mean power (MP; W kg−1), and fatigue index (FI; %). Utilizing power outputs (relative to body mass) recorded during each second of both protocols, a non-linear regression equation (Y
 20WAT+10 = 31.4697 e−0.5[ln(X
 second/1174.3961)/2.63692]; r
 2 = 0.97; SEE = 0.56 W kg−1) successfully predicted (error ∼10%) the final 10 s of power outputs in the cross-validation population. There were no significant differences between MP and FI between the 20-WAT that included the predicted 10 s of power outputs (20-WAT+10) and the 30-WAT. When derived data were subjected to Bland–Altman analyses, the majority of plots (93%) fell within the limits of agreement (±2SD). Therefore, when compared to the 30-WAT, the 20-WAT may be considered a valid alternative when used with the predictive non-linear regression equation to derive the final power output values.

Cross-validation of the 20- versus 30-s Wingate anaerobic test

Repeat measurements in 69 young adults were performed to assess the test-retest reliability and the 95% confidence interval of the difference in score between paired observations (MDC95) of a Wingate test as abbreviated for field sport participants (test of a 15-second duration [15-secT]). Test-retest reliability was excellent for peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO), independently of their mode of expression and was moderate for the fatigue index (FI). The standard errors of measurement (SEM) for absolute, relative, and derived PPO and MPO values ranged from 2.6 to 3.7%, all being smaller than the corresponding smallest worthwhile change (SWC). In contrast, FI values were rated as "marginal," with an SEM (9.6%) greater than the SWC (1.7). The range of MDC95 values for PPO and MPO were 9.9-10.4 and 7.37-7.42%, respectively. The absolute MPO showed the highest test-retest reliability and was the most effective in detecting real change. A second phase of the study evaluated the criterion-related validity of the 15-secT in 43 young men who performed 15-secT and standard 30-second Wingate anaerobic test (30-secT) in random order, on 2 separate occasions. There were no significant intertest differences in absolute, relative, or derived PPO. However, the FI for the 30-secT was greater than that for the 15-secT. Intertest correlations were highly significant for both MPOs and FIs. These findings suggest that the abbreviated Wingate test offers a reliable and valid tool for the evaluation of PPO and MPO, at least in young physical education students.

Test-retest reliability, criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of score on an abbreviated Wingate test for field sport participants.

Etude comparative entre le Wingate test et un test force-vitesse sur ergocycle

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

J. Heller

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Etude comparative entre le Wingate test et un test force-vitesse sur ergocycle