The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of the 3 main energy pathways during a 30-second elliptical all-out test (EAT) compared with the Wingate all-out test (WAT). Participants were 12 male team sport players (age, 20.3 ± 1.8 years; body mass, 74.8 ± 12.4 kg; height, 176.0 ± 9.10 cm; body fat, 12.1 ± 1.0%). Net energy outputs from the oxidative, phospholytic, and glycolytic energy systems were calculated from oxygen uptake data recorded during 30-second test, the fast component of postexercise oxygen uptake kinetics, and peak blood lactate concentration, respectively. In addition, mechanical power indices were calculated. The main results showed that compared with WAT, EAT was characterized by significantly lower absolute and relative contributions of the oxidative system (16.9 ± 2.5 J vs. 19.8 ± 4.9 J; p ≤ 0.05 and 11.2 ± 1.5% vs. 15.7 ± 3.28%; p ≤ 0.001). In addition, significantly greater absolute and relative contributions of the phospholytic system (66.1 ± 15.8 J vs. 50.7 ± 15.9 J; p ≤ 0.01 and 43.8 ± 6.62% vs. 39.1 ± 6.87%; p ≤ 0.05) and a significantly greater absolute contribution of the glycolytic system (68.6 ± 18.4 J vs. 57.4 ± 13.7 J; p ≤ 0.01) were observed in EAT compared with WAT. Finally, all power indices, except the fatigue index, were significantly greater in EAT than WAT (p ≤ 0.05). Because of the significantly lower aerobic contribution in EAT compared with WAT, elliptical trainers may be a good alternative to cycle ergometers to assess anaerobic performance in athletes involved in whole-body activities.

The 30-second, all-out Wingate test evaluates anaerobic performance using an upper or lower body cycle ergometer (cycle Wingate test). A recent study showed that using a modified electromagnetically braked elliptical trainer for Wingate testing (EWT) leads to greater power outcomes because of larger muscle group recruitment. The main purpose of this study was to modify an elliptical trainer using an easily understandable mechanical brake system instead of an electromagnetically braked modification. Our secondary aim was to determine a proper test load for the EWT to reveal the most efficient anaerobic test outcomes such as peak power (PP), average power (AP), minimum power (MP), power drop (PD), and fatigue index ratio (FI%) and to evaluate the retest reliability of the selected test load. Delta lactate responses (ΔLa) were also analyzed to confirm all the anaerobic performance of the athletes. Thirty healthy and well-trained male university athletes were selected to participate in the study. By analysis of variance, an 18% body mass workload yielded significantly greater test outcomes (PP = 19.5 ± 2.4 W·kg, AP = 13.7 ± 1.7 W·kg, PD = 27.9 ± 5 W·s, FI% = 58.4 ± 3.3%, and ΔLa = 15.4 ± 1.7 mM) than the other (12-24% body mass) tested loads (p < 0.05). Test and retest results for relative PP, AP, MP, PD, FI%, and ΔLa were highly correlated (r = 0.97, 0.98, 0.94, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.95, respectively). In conclusion, it was found that the mechanically braked modification of an elliptical trainer successfully estimated anaerobic power and capacity. A workload of 18% body mass was optimal for measuring maximal and reliable anaerobic power outcomes. Anaerobic testing using an EWT may be more useful to athletes and coaches than traditional cycle ergometers because a greater proportion of muscle groups are worked during exercise on an elliptical trainer.