William FoleyExercise Physiology Lab II

Lab 4 Wingate Test and Jump TestsApril 6, 2015

This lab focused on the Wingate Test, as well as the Four Jump Test, and the Sixty Jump test. The Wingate test was developed at the Wingate Institute in Israel in 1970. This test is used to examine the peak anaerobic power, anaerobic fatigue, and total anaerobic capacity. It is also known as the Wingate Anaerobic Test, and it uses a cycle ergometer and computer system that connects to the ergometer. This test is especially useful for sports, which make use of the anaerobic systems for energy such as hockey, and football.

Anaerobic power is the ability of the phosphocreatine system to generate energy. ATP is the main source of energy in cells, and is stored in a limited supply, and it can quickly be used up during exercise. The body then uses phosphocreatine in order to donate a phosphate group to ADP; which is then converted to ATP and used for energy by the muscles. Therefore the ability of this system to produce energy is anaerobic power. For the given intervals of this test, the peak anaerobic power is a measure of the highest mechanical power produced during the interval. Anaerobic capacity is the total amount of work achieved over the entire test. Finally, anaerobic fatigue is the percentage decline in power compared to the peak power output.

The Four Jump test and the Sixty Jump test both take a look at anaerobic energy systems. The Four Jump test is more of a measure of power, and the quickness that this power can be displayed at, while the sixty jump test measures anaerobic capacity by looking at the percent which the subject’s force output was reduced as they completed the jumps.

MethodsTo begin the Wingate Test, the subject started by performing a short dynamic

warm-up. Next, the subject adjusted the seat of the cycle ergometer to the height of their choice. They then warmed up pedaling at a steady pace for around ninety seconds. During this time, their information such as height and weight were entered into the computer system so that once the test began, the correct amount of force would be applied to the ergometer. Once the person on the cycle decided they were warmed up properly the warm up period for the test would begin. The warm-up period was thirty seconds and the objective was to have the subject ramp up their speed as the thirty seconds counted down, because when that was over the thirty seconds of the actual test would begin. The subject would pedal as hard as they could for thirty seconds. Every ten seconds the amount of revolutions the subject made would be recorded in order to record peak power, total work, mean power, and fatigue index.

The four jump test, and the sixty second jump test were both conducted using the Just Jump mat. The test began by having the tester set the system to the four jump test. The subject stepped onto the mat and jumped four times. The objective of test was to jump as high as possible, but also have as short of a ground contact time as possible too. This most likely lead to sub-maximal vertical jump

heights so that the subject could get off the ground quicker. The ground contact time, power, and average jump height were recorded.

The sixty jump test began very similarly to the four jump test; the Just Jump system was set to sixty jumps, and the subject stepped on the mat. They then jumped sixty times. Once again, the objective of this test was to jump as high as possible, but also while contacting the ground for as short of a period as possible. The only variable which was relevant for measurements during this test was the fatigue factor, which was recorded for each subject.

Results

Peak Power Mean Power0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Wingate: Peak and Mean Power

Subject 1Subject 2

Pow

er (

Wat

ts)

Figure 1: Displays the Peak and Mean Power outputs by the two subjects during the Wingate Test in this lab. (n=2).

Subject 1 Subject 20

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Wingate Total Work

Wok

(k

J)

Figure 2: Displays the total work performed by the two subjects during the Wingate Test (n=2).

Relative Peak Power Relative Mean Power0123456789

10

Relative Peak and Mean Power

Subject 1Subject 2

Rel

ativ

e P

ower

(W

/kg)

Figure 3: Displays the relative peak, and mean power of both subjects during the Wingate Test (n=2).

Subject 1 Subject 2187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

Wingate Relative Work

Rel

ativ

e W

ork

(J/

kg)

Figure 4: Displays the relative work each subject performed during the Wingate Test (n=2).

Male Ground Time Female Ground Time0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Four Jump Test Ground TimeMales vs. Females

Tim

e (s

)

Figure 5: Displays the average ground contact time for the males and females in the class (n=16, p=.058).

Male Female0.9885

0.989

0.9895

0.99

0.9905

0.991

0.9915

0.992

0.9925

0.993

Four Jump Test Exp. Power

Pow

er (

Wat

ts)

Figure 6: Displays the mean power output of the males and females in the class on the four jump test (n=16, p=.494).

Male Female02468

101214161820

Four Jump Test Average Jump Height

Jum

p H

eigh

t (i

n.)

Figure 7: Mean values for average jump height of the males and females during the four jump test (n=16, p=.00014)

Male Female0.9535

0.954

0.9545

0.955

0.9555

0.956

0.9565

0.957

0.9575

0.958

60 Jump Test Fatigue Factor

Fati

gue

Fact

or (

Per

cen

tage

)

Figure 8: Displays the average fatigue factor as a percentage for the males and females in the class (n=16, p= .480)Males 4 Jump 60 Jump

Ground Time Exp. Power Avg Jump Height Fatigue FactorMean 0.7 0.9925 18.875 0.955Median 0.665 0.905 18.25 0.975Mode N/A #N/A N/A N/A

Figure 9: A summary of the data obtained during the four jump, and 60 jump test for the males in the class. (n=4)

Females 4 Jump 60 Jump

Ground Time Exp. Power Avg Jump HeightFatigue Factor

Mean 0.541666667 0.99 12.525 0.9575Median 0.54 0.965 12.85 0.935Mode 0.54 0.72 #N/A 0.91

Figure 10: A summary of the data obtained during the four jump, and 60 jump test for the females in class. (n=12)

DiscussionIn the Wingate test the two variables which are addressed first are peak

power and mean power. Peak power is the maximum power that the subject displayed during a five second interval. During this test, subject one displayed a greater peak power than subject two. Both subjects are relatively healthy individuals, and as such with subject one being male, he most likely has more muscle mass than subject two. Since subject one has more muscle mass, he will be able to generate more power than subject two. The mean power, is the average power generated by each subject throughout the entire test. Once again, with subject one being male, and subject two being female, one can assume that subject one has a greater amount of muscle mass and will be able to generate more power throughout the entirety of the test, compared to subject two with less muscle mass.

Total work was another variable which was measured during the Wingate Test, and once again subject one performed more total work than subject two. The most likely reasoning for this would also be the greater muscle mass, and greater ability for subject one to perform work in the given time than subject two.

Finally, the last three variables measured are displayed in figures three and four; they are relative peak power, relative mean power and relative work. The relativity of these tests means that they are compared to each subject’s body weight. In these tests subject one, out performed subject two. This outcome is expected, male’s not only have a greater ability to gain muscle mass than females, but they generally carry lower body fat levels than females as well. Thus, not only does subject one have more muscle mass, and ability to do work and produce force than subject two, but more of his body mass is made of muscle and therefore able to do even more work than subject two.

In the display of ground contact time for males vs. females males had a greater ground contact time than females. Interestingly enough however, males had a greater power output than the female subjects in this test. I believe that the reason that the females had a smaller ground contact time than males was because they were not putting as much force into the ground as the males. In order to put a lot of force into the ground, one would have to be on the ground for a significant amount of time. Subsequently, by putting more force into the ground, the males also had a higher average vertical jump during the four jump test. It would be interesting to see individual scores for speed and agility tests compared to these measures of ground contact time, and force output; I believe that the athletes with

the best combination of high force output, and small ground contact time would be the ones that would score the best on the speed and agility tests.

Finally, the 60 jump test was a measure of fatigue, females had a higher fatigue factor than males. I believe it has a lot to do with men being more anaerobically trained than women in the class. I would be interested to see if the difference between the fatigue factors for men and women would be as high if both males and females were just as equally anaerobically trained as one another.