Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026
Experimental Protocol of a Three-minute, All-out Arm Crank Exercise Test in Spinal-cord Injured and Able-bodied Individuals
Published on: June 8, 2017
Mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and energy cost of the Wingate Anaerobic
D Micklewright1, A Alkhatib, R Beneke
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ Colchester, England. dpmick@essex.ac.uk
Abstract:
Performance and metabolic profiles of the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) were compared between a mechanically resisted (ME) and an electro-magnetically braked (EE) cycle ergometer. Fifteen healthy subjects (24.0+/-3.5 years, 180.5+/-6.1 cm, 75.4+/-11.9 kg) performed a WAnT on ME, and EE 3 days apart. Performance was measured as peak power (PP), minimum power (MP), mean power (AP), time to PP (TTPP), fatigue rate (FR), and maximum cadence (RPM(MAX)). Lactic (W (LAC)) and alactic (W (PCR)) anaerobic energy were calculated from net lactate appearance and the fast component of post-exercise oxygen uptake. Aerobic metabolism (W (AER)) was calculated from oxygen uptake during the WAnT. Total energy cost (W (TOT)) was calculated as the sum of W (LAC), W (PCR), and W (AER). There was no difference between ME and EE in PP (873+/-159 vs. 931+/-193 W) or AP (633+/-89 vs. 630+/-89 W). In the EE condition TTPP (2.3+/-0.7 vs. 4.3+/-0.7 s) was longer (P<0.001), MP (464+/-78 vs. 388+/-57 W) was lower (P<0.001), FR (15.2+/-5.2 vs. 20.5+/-6.8%) was higher (P<0.005), and RPM(MAX) (168+/-18 vs. 128+/-15 rpm) was slower (P<0.001). There was no difference in W (TOT) (1,331+/-182 vs. 1,373+/-120 J kg(-1)), W (AER) (292+/-76 vs. 309+/-72 J kg(-1)), W (PCR) (495+/-153 vs. 515+/-111 J kg(-1)) or W (LAC) (545+/-132 vs. 549+/-141 J kg(-1)) between ME and EE devices. The EE produces distinctly different performance measures but valid metabolic WAnT results that may be used to evaluate anaerobic fitness.
