Practice Effect of the Wingate Anaerobic Test

Barfield, J. P.; Sells, Pat; Rowe, Dave A.; Hannigan-Downs, K.

doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0472:peotwa>2.0.co;2

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The trend for a decrease in the standard deviation across the four tests, however, suggests a degree of habituation to the protocol across the 6-week period. This observation reinforces the recommendation that patients are adequately habituated to the test protocol to ensure robust outcome measures [16].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Reliability of the anaerobic threshold in cardiopulmonary exercise testing of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms*

Kothmann¹,

Danjoux²,

Owen

et al. 2008

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAnaerobic threshold (AT), determined by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), is a well-documented measure of pre-operative fitness, although its reliability in patient populations is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the reliability of AT measurement in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eighteen patients were recruited. CPET was performed four times over a 6-week period. We examined shifts in the mean AT to evaluate systematic bias with random measurement error assessed using typical within-patient error and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 3,1) statistics. There was no significant or clinically substantial change in mean AT across the tests (p = 0.68). The typical within-patient error expressed as a percentage coefficient of variation was 10% (95% CI, 8-13%), with an ICC of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.89). We consider the reliability of the AT to be acceptable, supporting its clinical validity and utility as an objective marker of pre-operative fitness in this population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Reliability of the anaerobic threshold in cardiopulmonary exercise testing of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms*

Kothmann¹,

Danjoux²,

Owen

et al. 2008

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the WAnT evaluation, all participants were instructed about the proper methods, although, a difference in trial I and trial II was registered. Barfield, Sells, Rowe, and HanniganDowns (2002) reported a systematic change in peak power (14%) and mean power (5%) between two trials in WAnT, when there is not a good familiarization with the evaluation test. In our study, for WAnT, the differences are 15% for peak power and 21% for mean power.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic fitness assessment in taekwondo athletes. A new perspective

Rocha

Louro²,

Matias

et al. 2016

motricidade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We intended to determine the concurrent validity of a taekwondo specific anaerobic test (TSAT) to assess anaerobic fitness in taekwondo athletes. Seventeen elite male subjects (17.59 ± 4.34 years of age; 1.72 m ± .07 m in height; 61.3 kg ± 8.7 kg in weight and 15.6% ± 8.5% in body fat) performed a TSAT, which consisted of kicking a punching bag for 30 seconds. The standard test was the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Two trials were made for both tests and the agreement between both was tested. The variables analysed and compared were: peak power; relative peak power; mean anaerobic power; relative mean anaerobic power; fatigue index and anaerobic capacity. The number of kicks performed in the TSAT protocol and the maximum height of the counter movement jump (CMJ) were also registered. Trial I and II had significant ICC results in all variables (P = .000) ranged between 0.56 and 0.97. Both protocols were significantly correlated (r = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .000 to .05). CMJ strongly correlated with the number of techniques (r=0.59; P = .013) and the mean power (r = 0.56; P = .019) of the TSAT. The variables between the two methods correlate and are consistent, except for the anaerobic capacity that although correlated, is not consistent with constant bias, P = 0.001; CI]-705.1;-370.2[. TSAT has a level of agreement with the Wingate, and assigns specificity in the evaluation of these variables.

show abstract

“…Finally, participants were required to complete a full 1h familiarization trial allowing them to become accustomed to the environmental conditions as well as ergometer control and required effort. The familiarization trial limits any learning effect that may have occurred across trials (Barfield et al, 2002;Ozkaya, 2013).…”

Section: Chapter Four: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%