An Elliptical Trainer May Render the Wingate All-out Test More Anaerobic

ÖZKAYA Ö., Colakoglu M., Kuzucu E. O., Delextrat A.

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, cilt.28, sa.3, ss.643-650, 2014 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 28 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2014
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182a20f77
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.643-650
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: phospholytic, validity, oxidative, energy contribution, glycolytic, PERFORMANCE, POWER, EFFICIENCY, PROFILES, STANDARD, PLAYERS, WORK
  • Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Ozkaya, O, Colakoglu, M, Kuzucu, EO, and Delextrat, A. An elliptical trainer may render the wingate all-out test more anaerobic. J Strength Cond Res 28(3): 643-650, 2014-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.