Development and Validation of Prediction Formula of Wingate Test Peak Power From Force–Velocity Test in Male Soccer Players

Abstract

Peak power of the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT), either in W (Ppeak) or in W.kg–1 (rPpeak), has been widely used to evaluate the performance of soccer players; however, its relationship with force–velocity (F-v) test (e.g., whether these tests can be used interchangeably) has received little scientific attention so far. The aim of this work was to develop and validate a prediction equation of Ppeak and rPpeak from F-v characteristics in male soccer players. Participants were 158 adult male soccer players (sport experience 11.4 ± 4.5 years, mean ± standard deviation, approximately five weekly training units, age 22.6 ± 3.9 years, body mass 74.8 ± 7.8 kg, and height 178.3 ± 7.8 cm) who performed both WAnT and F-v test. An experimental (EXP, n = 79) and a control group (CON, n = 79) were used for development and validation, respectively, of the prediction equation of Ppeak and rPpeak from F-v test. In EXP, Ppeak correlated very largely with body mass (r = 0.787), fat-free mass (r = 0.765), largely with maximal power of F-v test (Pmax; r = 0.639), body mass index (r = 0.603), height (r = 0.558), moderately with theoretical maximal force (F0; r = 0.481), percentage of body fat (r = 0.471), fat mass (r = 0.443, p < 0.001); rPpeak correlated with rPmax (largely; r = 0.596, p < 0.001), theoretical maximal velocity (v0; moderately; r = 0.341, p = 0.002), F0 (small magnitude; r = 0.280, p = 0.012), BF (r = −0.230, p = 0.042), and fat mass (r = −0.242, p = 0.032). Ppeak in EXP could be predicted using the formula “44.251 + 7.431 × body mass (kg) + 0.576 × Pmax (W) – 19.512 × F0” (R = 0.912, R2 = 0.833, standard error of estimate (SEE) = 42.616), and rPpeak from “3.148 + 0.218 × rPmax (W.kg–1) + v0 (rpm)” (R = 0.765, R2 = 0.585, SEE = 0.514). Applying these formulas in CON, no bias was observed between the actual and the predicted Ppeak (mean difference 2.5 ± 49.8 W; 95% CI, −8.7, 13.6; p = 0.661) and rPpeak (mean difference 0.05 ± 0.71 W.kg–1; 95% CI, −0.11, 0.21, p = 0.525). These findings provided indirect estimates of Ppeak of the WAnT, especially useful in periods when this test should not be applied considering the fatigue it causes; in this context, the F-v test can be considered as an alternative of exercise testing for estimating the average Ppeak of a group of soccer players rather than for predicting individual scores when the interindividual variation of performance is small.

Determination of optimal load in the Wingate Anaerobic Test is not depend on number of sprints included in mathematical models

“…We realize that we used the same load in kilograms for all the subjects, which constituted a different %BM or %LBM in individual cases. Similarly, Nikolaidis and Knechtle (2021) used the smaller load, i.e. 2, 3, 4, and 5 kg, in their study of football players.…”

“…The force-velocity relationship test (FVT) performed on a stationary cycle ergometer consist of multiple all-out sprints for a short period 4–15 s ( MacIntosh et al, 2003 ; Vargas et al, 2015 ; Jaafar et al, 2016 ; Nikolaidis and Knechtle, 2021 ) against different braking loads ( Driss and Vandewalle, 2013 ). In the previous research two different approaches were applied.…”

“…Firstly, loads are set to percentage of body weight ( Vargas et al, 2015 ; Krüger et al, 2020 ). Secondly, based on absolute loads expressed in kilograms ( Jaafar et al, 2016 ; Nikolaidis and Knechtle, 2021 ). The advantages of using this test include 1) the assessment of the ability to produce neuromuscular force by a relatively readily available, safe and reliable method; 2) the fact that working on a cycle ergometer is considered a well-known task that anyone can perform ( Driss and Vandewalle, 2013 ; Rudsits et al, 2018 ).…”

“…Moreover, it allows to determine the optimal load (OPT LOAD ) and optimal cadence (OPT CAD ) of PPO generation ( Dorel et al, 2005 ; Driss and Vandewalle, 2013 ; Rudsits et al, 2018 ). It is not surprising that several studies compared PPO obtained in the WAnT and FVT ( Jaafar et al, 2016 ; Nikolaidis and Knechtle, 2021 ). Jaffar et al (2016) compared the results of the WAnT (8.7% and 11% BM) and the F-v test and concluded that the optimal load during WAnT should be approximately equal to 10% BM for recreationally individuals.…”

“…For example, Kruger et al (2020) used only two sprints for this purpose. In turn, Nikolaidis and Knechtle (2021) used four 7-s sprints with a load of 2, 3, 4, and 5 kg, MacIntosh et al (2003) five 4–7-s sprints, while Rudsits et al (2018) six 6-s sprints. In connection with this, justifies comparing the number of sprints used in the F-v and P-v models.…”