Mechanically braked Wingate powers: agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement

James Balmer, Steve R. Bird, R.C. Richard Davison, Mike Doherty, Paul M. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)661-667
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Volume22
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Torque
Software

Keywords

  • arm cranking
  • maximal intensity exercise

Cite this

Balmer, James ; Bird, Steve R. ; Davison, R.C. Richard ; Doherty, Mike ; Smith, Paul M. / Mechanically braked Wingate powers : agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement. In: Journal of Sports Sciences. 2004 ; Vol. 22, No. 7. pp. 661-667.
@article{5ca05e9ea3214d048cfd99ed394c5395,
title = "Mechanically braked Wingate powers: agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement",
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",
author = "James Balmer and Bird, {Steve R.} and Davison, {R.C. Richard} and Mike Doherty and Smith, {Paul M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1080/02640410310001655831",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "661--667",
journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
issn = "0264-0414",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "7",

}

Mechanically braked Wingate powers : agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement. / Balmer, James; Bird, Steve R.; Davison, R.C. Richard; Doherty, Mike; Smith, Paul M.

In: Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 7, 07.2004, p. 661-667.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanically braked Wingate powers

T2 - agreement between SRM, corrected and conventional methods of measurement

AU - Balmer, James

AU - Bird, Steve R.

AU - Davison, R.C. Richard

AU - Doherty, Mike

AU - Smith, Paul M.

PY - 2004/7

Y1 - 2004/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - arm cranking

KW - maximal intensity exercise

U2 - 10.1080/02640410310001655831

DO - 10.1080/02640410310001655831

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 661

EP - 667

JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

SN - 0264-0414

IS - 7

ER -