REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

valid OMB mntrol number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYV2009

2. REPORT TYPEJournal Article

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)Aus 1998 - June 2006

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLEWingate Anaerobic Test Peak Power and Anaerobic Capacity Classification for Male and Female

Intercollesiate Athletes

5a. CONTRACT NUMBERIn-House

5b. GRANT NUMBERN/A5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER62202F

6. AUTHOR(S)M. F. Zupanr, A.W. Arata2, L.H. Dawson', A.L. Wile2, T.L.Paynz, andM.E. Hannon3

5d. PROJECT NUMBER775',15e. TASK NUMBERP95f, WORK UNIT NUMBER1 8

7. PERFORMTNG ORGANTZATTON NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

rDept of Exercise ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, SC

'Air Force Research LaboratoryHuman Effectiveness DirectorateB iosciences and Performance DivisionBrooks City-Base, TX 782352Dept of AthleticsU.S. Air Force AcademyColorado Springs, CO

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORTNUMBER

2485 Gillinghman Dr.Brooks Citv-Base. TX 78235

Air Force Materiel Command7l I Human Performance WingAir Force Research LaboratoryHuman Effectiveness DirectorateBiosciences and Performance Division

L SPONSORTNG / MONTTORTNG AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 1 0. sPoNsoR/MoNtToR's AcRoNyM(s)7I I HPWRH

1 1. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORTNUMBER(S)

AFRL-RH-BR.JA-2OO8.OOO612. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDistribution A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. PA No. 08-077;24Mar 08.

1 3. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESPublished in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2009), 23(9),2598-2604.

14. ABSTRACTThe Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) has been established as an effective tool in measuring both muscular power and anaerobic capacityin a 3O-second time period; however there are no published normative tables by which to compare WAnT performance in male and femalecollegiate athletics. The purpose ofthis study was to develop a classification system for anaerobic peak power and anaerobic capacity formale and female NCAA Division I college athletes using the WAnT. One thousand three hundred and seventy four male and 2l I femaletests were conducted on athletes ranging from the ages of 18 to 25 using the WAnT. Absolute and relative peak power and anaerobiccapacify data were recorded. One-half standard deviations were used to set up a seven-tier classification system (poor to elite) for theseassessments. These classifications can be used by athletes, coaches, and practitioners to evaluate anaerobic peak power and anaerobiccapacity in their athletes.

15. SUBJECT TERMSMuscular power, fatigue index, absolute power, relative power, physical fitness

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: UnclassifiedU

17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT

U

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

7

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSONDr. Sharon K. Garcia

a. REPORTU

b. ABSTRACTU

c. THIS PAGE

U19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER 1nclude areacode)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribsd by ANSI Std. 239.18

WrNcern AranRoBrc Tpsr Pnnn Pownn ANDAlannoBrc Capacrry Cr,assrFrcATroNs FoR MnNAND WovrnN INIpRCoLLEGTATE Atrrr,nrnsMrcrnnr- F. ZuraNrr Ar.AN W. AR"A,rArr Lnrrrra H. DawsoNrl Alrnnn L. Wrr-nrl T*rena L. Pavxr2exr MncaN E. Hemor$I Depaxment olfAtltlenbs, United States Air Force Academy, USAM, Colorado; 2Department oif Exerase Sabnce, Unioenil ofSoutlt Camlina, Columbia, Soutlt Carohna; and 3Annex Sports Pefrrmance, Cltatltam, Nan Jersey

Ansrn-ncr

Zupan, MF, Arata, AW, Dawson, LH, Wile, AL, Payn, TL, andHannon, ME. Wingate Anaerobic Test peak power and anaerobic

capacity classifications for men and women intercollegiate

athletes. J Strength Cond Res 23(9): 2598-2604, 2009-The

Wingate Anaeroblc Test (WAnT) has been established as an

effective tool in measuring both muscular power and anaerobic

capacity in a SO-second time period; however, there are nopublished normative tables by which to compare WAnT per-

formance in men and women intercollegiate athletics. The pur-

pose of this study was to develop a classification system for

anaerobic peak power and anaerobic capacity for men and

women National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

Division I col lege athletes using the WAnT. A total of 1,585(1,374 men and 21 1 women) tests were conducted on athletesranging from the ages of 18 to 25 years using the WAnT.

Absolute and relative peak power and anaerobic capacity datawere recorded. One-half standard deviations were used to setup a 7-tier classification system (poor to elite) for these assess-ments. These classifications can be used by athletes, coaches,

and practitioners to evaluate anaerobic peak power andanaerobic capacity in their athletes.

Ksy W-ORDS muscular porter, fatigue inde4 absolute power,

relative poWer, physrcal fitness

Testing completed at the United States Air Force Academy, HmmPerfomance Laboratory.

Address correspondence to Michael F. Zupan, michael.zupan@usafa.edu.

2s(e)/2se8-2604

Joumal EtStrength and Cond/hloning Researclt@ 2009 Nattbnal Strengt/t and Conditioning Assoaahbn

2598 Jdfrrnal of Srength and Conditioning Researcli

IwrnopucrroN

hysical fitness can be assessed through 5 majorcomponents: cardiorespiratory endurance, muscularpower/strength, muscular endurance, flexibility,and body composition. An anaerobic activity is

defined as energy expenditure that uses anaerobic metabolism(without the use of oxygen) that lasts less than 90 seconds,utilizing an exhaustive effort (25). Two major energy sourcesare required during the WAnT. The first is the adenosinetriphosphate-phosphocreatine (ATP-PCr) system, whichlasts for 3 to 15 seconds during maximum effort (25). Thesecond system is anaerobic glycolysis, which can be sustainedfor the remainder of the all-out effort (25). Therefore, theWAnT measures the muscles' ability to work using both theATP-PCI and glycolytic systems. Many sports-includingfootball, sprinting, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, and gymnastics-use anaerobic metabolism extensively during competition.This study examines the aspect of lower-body peak powerand anaerobic capacity using the 3O-second exhaustiveWingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT).

Several tests can assess an athlete's peak power (a measure

ofmuscular strength and speed), anaerobic capacity, or both.

These tests include the vertical jump test, standing long jump

test, Bosco repeated jumps (18), and WAnT (3,6,11).The WAnT measures lower-body peak power; anaerobic

capacity; and the reduction of power, known as fatigue index(FD (3,7). The WAnT is a 30-second all-out exhaustive

ergometry test where the athlete pedals against a resistance

that is set at a certain percentage ofhis or her body weight.

The power output is measured throughout the test by the

number ofrevolutions the athlete can achieve on the ergo-

meter during those 30 seconds. The peak power recorded is

the maximal power output achieved for 5 seconds ofthe test,

usually the first 5 seconds. The anaerobic capacity, or averagepower, is recorded and averaged over the entire 30 seconds ofthe test. The lowest power output is an average of the lowest

5 seconds seen during the test, usually the last 5 seconds.

Finally, the diference in power output from highest to lowest

is recorded as the FI. The ability to evaluate these

Copvright s; Lippine*tt Wifliams & Wilkins. l..Jnar.rthorized reproduction af this articl* is prohibited.

I

J6'urnal of Snength and Conditioning Researcli I wwwnsca-jscr.org

measurements makes theWAnT a valuable test forcoaches, athletes, and researchscientists.

Many researchers andcoaches measure muscularstrength with a l-repetitionmaximum (lRM) lift (11). Theyalso measure muscular endur-ance via repetition lifts (toinclude bench press at a percentof the athlete's body weight,push-ups, sit-ups, or pull-ups)until exhaustion. These meas-

Tlele 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (mean + SD).

Men (n = 457) Women (n : 64)

Age (years)Weight (kg)Height (cm)Sports tested

1 9 . 7 + 1 . 68 1 . 2 + 1 l . 8

180.6 + 7 .8Lacrosse, football, water polo,

boxing, track, cycling, soccer,baseball , and wrestl ing

1 9 . 3 + 1 . 362j + 7.7

167.1 + 7 .9Tennis, track, soccer,

and gymnastics

urements allow a coach to observe individual improvements;however, it is difficult to truly compare one athlete's data toanother's in a lifting exercise unless the exact distance ofthelift or weight (in the case of push-ups or pull-ups) is equal.Comparing an athlete's data to a set standard is important forathletes and coaches of sports that require both muscularpower and anaerobic capacity. Until this study, there has notbeen a compilation of data to compute normative tables bywhich athletes could compare their Wingate scores.

Mnrnops

Experimental Approach to the ProblemThe purpose of this study was to develop a classificationsystem for anaerobic peak power and anaerobic capacity formen and women college-age athletic populations.

SublectsNational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division Iathletes from the U.S. Air Force Academy between the ages of18 and 25 years participated in this study (Thble 1). Theathletes came from sports that require short bursts of peakpower and a high anaerobic capacity during competition toinclude lacrosse, gymnastics, sprint cycling, football, baseball,tennis, and track. A total of 1,585 WAnTb (1,374 men and 21 1women) were administered to 521 Division I athletes (457

: :::

: Trele 2. Wingate test results.

men, 64 women). These data were preexisting data from thequarterly, semi-annual, or annual testing that these teamsperform for training purposes; thus no informed consentdocuments (ICDs) were obtained.

ProceduresPrior to testing, body weight was collected using a Detectoelectronic scale. The athletes were then fitted for their optimalseat height on a Monark 8248 or 874E weight ergometer.These ergometers were specially designed WAnTergometers,with instantaneous load and brfing systems. The seatheight was adjusted so that no more than 5 degrees ofkneeflexion was present when the leg was fully extended. Eachsubject was then given a 3 to 5 minute warm-up period ona Monark 868 cycle ergometer, striving to achieve a warm-upheart rate of 130 to 140 beats per minutes (bpm). Athleteswho had not previously taken the WAnT were required toperform 2 or 3, 5-second high revolution spins during theirwarm-up. This was completed to acquaint the athletes withthe pedaling speed requirements of the WAnT.

The resistance load was set at 7.50/o of the subject's bodyweight within a 0.1-kg resolution of resistance range. Thisload was used for tests in both men and women. Prior togetting on the ergometer for the test, a Polar Vantage NV heartrate monitor transmitter was olaced around the athletes'

PP (W) PP (W/kg-1) AC (W) AC (Wkg-1) Fl (o/o) HR (bpm)

Men (n : 457)Mean 951SD 141Range 448-1 ,529

W o m e n ( n : 6 4 )MeanSDRange

598BB

388-822

1 1 . 6 51 . 3 9

6 , 1 2 - 1 7 . 2 7

o 6 0

n o o

6.10-1 2.30

6869 1

231 -983

445oz+

288-651

8.470.88

4.80-1 1 .45

/ . I o

0.705.00-8.93

477.6

13-77

427.9

1 6-61

1 8 3' t4

138-227

1 8 0

1 54-208

pp: peak power; AC : anaerobic capacity; Fl : fatigue index; HR : heart rate; bpm : beats per minute.

voLuME23 | r{uMBERe I DEcEMBER2ooe r 2599

CcByright $,' Lippincott Williams & Wiikin*. Unauth*rised r*prcdr:ciion af this artiele is prchibiteil.

N6)0o Tlste 3. Wingate Anaerobic Test power comparisons for men.

-l

c)Year Sample size (n,) Subject typePeak power

(w)Relative peak

power (Wkg-1)Average Average

power (W) power (Wkg-l)l 6

$

^ ii tt:li : l l l

c- ,r : : : :

o

oc- : a : . ,

F- : ; | . t t \

C) IiiilO i l : r r :

a

O q l

s t : i : :F : l i

fi

(})t"*

3'

{siS)={r}G(3

5n

C:J

fi

*1,

N{s

a

;;

v

t*

($

fr'

{F

Current studyAl-Hazzaa et al. (1 )Apostolidis et al. (2)Barfield et al. (4)Bell and Cobner (5)Heller et al. (9)Kocak and KarliMangine et al. (1 3)Maud and ShultzN ind l e t a l . ( l5 )Patton et al.Peveler et al.Ponorac et al. (1 7)

Sbriccol i et al.Starling et al. (20)Watson and Sargeant (22)Weber et al. (23)Wiegman et al. (24)

200820012004200220071 99820031 9901 9891 9951 98520072007

20071 996'I 98620061 995

1 ,37 4231 325411 1208360201 0o

95

o

1 024' l o

1 0

8681 , 1 5 4

1 , 2 3 6

1,055850

1 1 . 6 51 1 . 8 81 0 . 7 0

14.701 0 . 5 28 . 1 09 . 1 89 . 1 0

1 1 . 2 5

8 . 1 2

7.247.209.21

9.649.758.846.935.40

7.709.707.55

1 8-25-year-old intercollegiate athletes25-year-old elite soccer playersJunior Basketball League (age: 18.5 years)2O years old21 -year-old rugby playersTae kwon do national teamI nternational-level wrestlersNational soccer players18-28 years oldHigh school athletesOlympic biathletesTrained cyclistsJudoSoccerRowersNonathletesOlympic-level jodokasCompetitive cyclistsUniversity hockey players (age: 20 years)Active males25-year-old athletes

686587

b.JZ+

951873

563548

538700694

1,248

8.478.028.00

64879876369.155755712.'tO

8.501 0 . 1 013 .3010.35

766620

]iil]i]iiii:li$sisiii:ii:llll.:....=.:=..|,'.11!1ii:!E[$lllls.tii:.=+]=.Taet.e 4. Wingate Anaerobic Test power comparisons for women.

a

@

te

C)

F

o

{€€

3..

AuthorSample

Year size (n) Subject typePeak power

(w)Relative peak Average Average

power (Wkg-l) power (W) power (Wkg 1)

Current studyFindley et al. (8)Heller et al.Jacob et al. (10)

Maud and ShultzNindl et al.Sbriccoli et al. (1 9)Thorland et al. (21)Weber et al.Woolstenhulme et al. (26)

200820021 9982002

2111 01 21 9

598451

5087 1 0454442635414725

60205

311 01 8

1 8-25-year-old intercollegiate athletesFemale firefightersTae kwon do national team7 endurance trained (ET)6 sprinters (ST)18-28 years oldHigh school athletesOlympiclevel jodokasJunior-level sprint/mid-distance runnersActive femaleDivision I basketball players

9.59

1 0 . 1 09.50

1 2 . 6 07.617.509.509 . 1 0

1 1 . 4 0

,.:u

7.709.006.355.304.30

8 . 1 06.60

445314

4095 1 0380307285

51 I

1 9891 99520071 98620062004 i;r

' ' ' : : l

TABLE 5. Wingate Anaerobic Test classification of peak power (W, Wkg-1) and anaerobic capacity (W, Wkg-l) for men

Categories Peak power (W) Peak power (Wkg r) Anaerobic capacity (W) Anaerobic capacity (Wkg-r)

: {L ,Iti$ E

.l-::-l:==i:i:',+i:l. . i

"< ' i : i

iO . l { ;

1 : , \ Ei l , 1 :N ! : :Y]: ]

:::i-":i:z .a=a:::C :r:::i:t:::.3o .E i " l! 1 r i . .@ li ili:$S

i) ta iia:litjInon-EEF

oo

*oto

EliteExcellentAbove averageAverageBelow averageFairPoor

> 1 , 1 6 31 , 0 9 2 - 1 , 1 6 31 , 0 2 1 - 1 , 0 9 1880-1 ,020809-879739-808

<739

>13.7413.O4-13.741 2.35-13.031 1.65-1 2.3410.96-1 1 .649.57-10.95

<9.57

>823778-823.732-777640-731595-639549-594

<549

>9.799.35-9.798.91-9 .348.02-8.907.58-8.017 .14-7 .57

< 7 . 1 4

-Ellii I ili

Athlete V/AnT Classifi cations

TaeLe 6, Wingate Anaerobic Test classification of peak power (W, Wikg 1) and anaero-bic capacity (W, W/kg 1) for

CategoriesPeak power

(w)Peak Power

(W/kg ')Anaerobic

capacity (W)Anaerobic capacity

(W/kg-r)

El i teExcel lentAbove averageAverageBelow averageFairPoor

>730686-730642-685554-64151 0-553467-509

<467

> 1 1 . 0 71 0 . 5 8 - 1 1 . 0 7'| 0.08- t 0.579. t 0 -10 .078.60-9.098 . t 1 - 8 . 5 9

< 8 . 1 1

>54151 0-541478-50941 4-477382-41 3351 -381

<351

> 8 , 2 27.86-8.227 . 5 1 - 7 . 8 56 . 8 1 - 7 . 5 06.45-6.806.10-6 .44

< 6 . 1 0

chests to allow for heart rate monitoring during warm-up, the30-second test, and recovery. Heart rate measurements wereused during active recovery as the athletes pedaled until theirheart rates'returned to approximately 120 bpm.

The actual testing procedure consisted of the athletesperforming a 10-second countdown phase, a 30-second all-out pedaling phase, and an active recovery phase. During thefirst 5 seconds ofthe countdown the athletes began pedalingat a comfortable cadence and became situated on theergometer. Five seconds prior to the start of the test, theathletes began to pedal at their maximum speed againsta resistance approximately one third of their testing intensity.With less than 1 second left in the countdown, resistance wasadded instantaneously by dropping the weight rack. TheMonark weight ergometers have a pin that is pulled (824E) ora lever (874E) that allows for instantaneous weight loading.Data were then recorded for the next 30 seconds using an SMIOptoSensor 2000 and the Wingate Power software program.This system is similar to the testing device described by Pattonet al. (16) in which an automatic computerized counter wasused to tally the total number of revolutions completedduring the 30-second test.

All subjects were verbally encouraged to continue to pedalas fast as they could for the entire 30 seconds. Peak power andanaerobic capacity were calculated and recorded in watts (W)

and watts per kilogram body weight $Mlkg-t); the FI wascalculated as a percentage, and heart rates were recorded inbpm. Classification categories were created for both womenand men athletes based on their peak power and anaerobiccapacity scores.

Rnsur,rs

Peak power and anaerobic capacity in absolute (W] andrelative to body weight @,zkg-r) were determined for theWAnT. The data were analyzed and classified usingdescriptive statistics (Thble 2).

A 7-bin category structure was formed from the datacollected. Each component was broken down into averages +

standard deviation using EXCEL descriptive statistics. The

2602 Jdfirnal ofSrength and Conditioning Research

categories were then constructed from a +0.5 standarddeviation change. These categories consist ofelite, excellent,above average, average, below average, fair, and poor.

DrscussroN

Success in many sports requires high leg power and anaerobiccapacities. Some sports require absolute power, or the highestpower output possible, independent of body size, such asfootball linemen, power lifters, or hammer throwers. If 2players' skill level or technique are equal, then the morepowerfi.rl athlete will usually outperform the less powerfulopponent. Other sports, where the athlete must move his orher body across a field or ice rink with a quick burst ofenergy,require a high relative peak power and anaerobic capacity. Upuntil now, WAnT studies with a large sample size have notbeen completed on well-trained college-age athletes and thusthere has been no classification system developed for coachesto interpret test results. The purpose of this study was todevelop a classification system for absolute and relative peakpower and anaerobic capacity for men and women college-age athletic populations. In doing this, any athlete canperform the WAnTand compare themselves to other athleteson a scale from "poor" to "elite."

Our data closely reflect the data on various researchprojects with small sample sizes. Studies investigating poweror training effects related to power are summarized for men(Thble 3) and women (Table ). These tables reflect the peakpower and anaerobic capacities reported and are comparedto the means of this study. When comparing the data, it isimportant to recognize the differing subject samples. Studiesthat used college-age elite athletes are most comparable tothe present study (1,2,12), whereas older and younger subjectstudies, and studies completed on standard 868 ergometers,may not be as relevant. Before 1999 the automatic weightbasket system had not been used extensively in most humanperformance laboratories. All but a few labs had to manuallycrank the load adjustment knob to quickly add the load. Withthis in mind, the delay time to reach maximum resistance wasmost likely 2 to 4 seconds, reducing the peak power and

Capyright S,t tippin*ott Wi|liams & Wilkin*" Unauihcriaed repraduciian nf this art*cle is prohibitecl

Jdirnal of Stength and Conditioning Researcli I www.nsca-jscr.org

possibly the anaerobic capacity because the 30 secondsusually did not start until the final load was reached. Today'sergometers allow for instantaneous loading and recording sothe athlete receives credit for the initial seconds of the test.Most studies performed prior to 1999, with the exception of 1(16), report substantially lower peak power and anaerobiccapacities than the present study.

The study performed by Maud and Shultz (14) is the onlyother known study that has attempted to set normative tablesby which to compare WAnT performance. This studyconsisted of 186 subjects (112 men and 74 women) from cluband varsity sports, physical education majors, and physicaleducation students. They established a percentile ranking inmen and women for peak power @, VkKg-1 andW,zkgLBM- ), mean power (W, W/kC-' and WkgLBM

- 1),

and fatigue index (0/o). Testing for this study was performedwith manual counting on a standard 818 ergometer and mayhave resulted in human error at the higher revolutions. Theauthors also reported a 2- to 3-second delay in reachingthe required load (14); thus the athletes were working atmaximal effort without receiving credit for this work These2 limitations, along with the fact that our subjects were allintercollegiate athletes, may account for the significantlyhigher averages in all WAnT categories seen in this study.

A 7-bin category structure was formed from the data col-lected. Tables 5 (men) and 6 (women) contain the categorytier of peak power and anaerobic capacity 1W and Wkg-t)for intercollegiate athletes.

It is common to find 5 categories ofevaluation to categoiznmany different levels offitness for the average person (14).Most times these are simply broken up into percentiles, 0 to2070 being the lowest and so on. Sometimes 6 categories havebeen used. It was decided in this study to use a one halfstandard deviation to differentiate the categories and, in doingso, have 3 categories on either side ofaverage. This 7-categorysystem allows for a more accurate evaluation of the individualathlete and provides the clinician, coach, and athlete witha better understanding ofthe interpretation ofthe test results.

No classification system was set up for fatigue index orheart rates. The athletes were asked to bring their heart ratesup to around 140 bpm during warm-up and to perform anactive recovery following the WAnT until their heart ratesreturned close to 120 bpm. It was found that the FI wasinversely related to peak power. Having a high or low FI doesnot directly indicate an athlete's ability, but if there are 2equally power{ul atNetes and t has a lower FI, then,physiologically speaking that athlete will probably be thebetter athlete on the field. By itself however, no value wasfound in setting up a classification system for the FI.

Pnlcrrcs, Appr,rclrroNs

The purpose of this study was to establish set standards forintercollegiate athletes in lower-body peak power andanaerobic capacities from the Wingate Anaerobic Test.Although there have been multiple studies done involving

the WAnT, none have been able to work with such a highnumber of well-trained athletes. The classification categoriesformulated will allow coaches, clinicians, and athletes to usethese charts as tools to evaluate power output and providecomparisons from a set ofreliable standards. This informationshould begin to create a framework by which athletes cancompare their performance on the Wingate Anaerobic Test.

Rnrnnnxcnsl. AI-Huza4 HM, Almuzaini, KS, Al-Refaee, SA, Sulaiman, MA,

Dafterdar, MY, Al-Ghamedi, A, and Al-Khuraiji, KN. Aerobic andanaerobic power characteristics ofSaudi elite soccer players. J SPortMed Phys Fr't 4l: 54-61,200t.

2. Apostolidis, N, Nassis, GP, Bolatoglou, T, and Geladas, ND.Physiological and technical characteristics of elite young basketballplayers. J Sport Med P/tys Fr't 44:157-163,2004.

3. Bar-Or, O. The Wingate Anaerobic Test: An update on method-ology, reliability, and validity. S?zrts Med 4:381-394,1987.

4. Barfield, J, Sells, PD, Rowe, DA, md Hannigan-Downs, K. Practiceellect of the Wingate Anaerobic Test. J Strmgth Cond Res 16:472-473,2002.

5. Bell, W and Cobner, DM. Eflect of individual time to peak poweroutput on the expression of peak power output in the 30-s WingateAnaerobic Test Int J S|orls Med28:135-139,2007.

6. Chromiah JA, Smedley, B, Carpenter, W, Brown, R, Koh, YS,Lamberth, JG, Joe, LA, Abadie, BR, and Altorfer, G. Effect of 10-week strength training program and recovery drink on bodycomposition, muscular strength and endurance, and anaerobicpower and capacity. Nuh'tron 20: 420427, 2004.

7. Cooper, SM, Baker, JS, Eaton, ZE, and Matthews, N. A simplemultistage field test for the prediction ofanaerobic capacity in femalegames players. Bnt J Sport Med 38: 784-789,2004.

8. Findley, BW, Brown, LE, and Whitehurst, M. Anaerobic powerperformance ofincumbent female firefrghters. J Strength Cond Res 16:474476,2002.

9. Heller,J, Peric, T, Dlouha R, Kohlikova, E, Melichna,J, andNovakova, H. Physiological profiles of male and female taekwon-do(ITF) black belts. J Spo* Sa 16:243-249,1998.

10. Jacob, C, Zouhal, H, Vincent, S, Gratas-Delamarche, A,Berthon, PM, Bentue-Ferrer, D, and Delamarche, P. Training status(endurance of sprint) and catecholamine response to the Wingate-test in women. Int J SporX Med 23: 342-347, 2002.

11. Jordan, AN,Jurca, & Abraham, EH, Salikhova, A, Mann,JK,Morss, GM, Church, TS, Lucia, A, and Earnest, CP Effecs of oralATP supplementation on anaerobic power and muscula strengthMed Sa Spons Exerc 36: 983-990, 2004.

12. Kocak, S and Karli, U. Effects ofhigh dose oral creatinesupplementation on anaerobic capacity ofelite wrestlers. J SpzraMed P/rys Fitness 43: 488-492,2003.

13. Mangine, RE, Noyes, FR, Mullen, MP, and Barber, SD. Aphysiological profile ofthe elite soccer ̂ thlete. J Oltlo? Spo* PhysTher 12: 147-152. 1990.

14. Maud, PJ and Shultz BB. Norms for the Wingate Anaerobic Testwith comparison to another similar test. Res Q Exerc Slort 60: 144-151. 1989.

15. Nindl, BC, Mahar, MT, Haman, EA, and Patton,JF. Lower andupper body anaerobic performance in male and female adolescentatlletes Med Sn' S?orts Exerc 27 : 235-241, 1995.

16. Patton,J4 M.,rphy, MM, and Frederich FA. Maximal poweroutputs during the Wingate Araerobic Tct. Int J Spo* Med 6:82-85. 1985.

17 Ponorac, N, Matavulj, A, Rajkovaca, Z, and Kavacevic, P. Theassessment ofmaerobic capacity in athletes ofvarious sports.MedinnsLi pregled 60: 427 -430, 2007.

voLuME 2s I NUMBER e I DEcEMBER 200e I 2603

Capvright G) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unar:thnrized repraductlnn cf this artiele is prchibited

Athlete IflAnT Classifi cations

18. Sands, WA, McNeal, JR, Ochi, MT, Urbanek, TL, Jemni, M, andStone, MH. Comparison ofthe Wingate and Bosco Anaerobic Tests.J Strength Cond Ra 18: 810-815, 2004.

19. Sbriccoli, P,Bazztrcchi,I, Di Mario, A, Marzattinocci, G, andFelici, R Assessment of maximal cardiorespiratory performanceand muscle power in the Italian Olympicfudoka. J Strmgtl Cond Res2l: 738-744,2007.

20. Starling, RD, Trappe, TA, Short KR, Sheffield-Moore, M,Jozsi, AC,Fi"k, !VJ, and Costill, DL. Effect of inosine supplementation onaerobic and anaerobic cycling perfomance. Mcd Sa SprX Exerc28: 1193-1198. 1996.

21. Thorland, WG,Johnson, GO, Cisar, CJ, Housh, TJ, andTharp, GD. Strength and aerobic responses of elite youngfemale sprint and distance runners. Med Sa SporX Exrc 19:5G61,1987.

22. Watson, RC and Sargeant, TL. Laboratory and on-ice comparisonsof anaerobic power of ice hockey players. Can J A??l S?nrt Scill:218-224. 1986.

23. Weber, CL, Chia M, and Inbar, O. Gender difference in anaerobicpower of the arms and legs-a scaling issue. Med Sa'Spr.t: Exere28: 129-137. 2006.

24. Wiegman, JE Burton, RR, and Forster, EM. The role of anaerobicpower in human tolerance to simulated aerial combat maneuvers.Aotat Span Emimn Med 66:938-942, 1995.

25. Wilmore, JH and Costill, DL. Physiokg of sport and exercise (3rdedinon) Charnpaigr, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.

26. Woolstenhulme, MT, Bailey, BK, and Allsen, PE. Vertical jump,anaerobic power, and shooting accuracy are not altered six hoursafter strength training in collegiate women basketball players.J Strmgth Cond Res 18: 422427,2004.

2604 1o$urnal of Srength and Conditioning Researcli

Capyright €: LipFinectt lVilliams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reprsductinn of this erticle is nrohibited