Mechanically braked Wingate powers: agreement between SRM,corrected and conventional methods of measurement |
| |
| Authors: | James Balmer Steve R Bird RC Richard Davison Mike Doherty Paul M Smith |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Deanery of Sciences and Social Sciences , Liverpool Hope University College , Liverpool, UK;2. Centre for Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport Science , Victoria University , Melbourne, Australia;3. Department of Sport and Exercise Science , University of Portsmouth , Portsmouth, UK;4. Department of Sport, Exercise and Biomedical Sciences , University of Luton , Luton, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | arm cranking maximal intensity exercise |
|
|
