Comparison of 30 Second Cycling Sprint Field Tests with the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1991 Comparison of 30 second cycling sprint field tests with the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test Walter Carl Ammons The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Ammons, Walter Carl, "Comparison of 30 second cycling sprint field tests with the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test" (1991). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7321. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7321 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mauieen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financM gain may be under^en only with the autiior’s written consent. University of M ontana Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Comparison of 30 Second Cycling Sprint Field Tests with the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test by Walter Carl F. Ammons B.S., University of Montana 1981 Presented in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Summer 1991 Approved by Chair, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School A / f f / Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP38122 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT D*sa«rt«tion Pyaliahing UMI EP38122 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest' ■<z: ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Ammons, Walter Carl, F., Master of Science, September, 1990 Health and Physical Education A Comparison of 30 Second Cycling Sprint Field Tests with the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test (32 pp.) Director: Kathleen E. Miller, Ph.D. A comparison of similar duration field and laboratory sprint tests was conducted to examine the similarity of standing and sitting test portocols. The need for examining the similarity of controlled environment laboratory tests such as the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test (WnAT) with field tests is seen in the general literature. Use of indoor laboratory tests to help ascertain the fitness level of cyclists is very important to the athlete and coach. Systematic evaluation of cyclist's fitness throughout the racing season and off season would enable the careful design of optimal training schedules for cyclists. The scope of this research was to examine the similarity of a 30 second laboratory test with a 30 second field test. Secondary research questions looked at were the similarity of standing and sitting laboratory sprint tests at two different resistance settings (normal and +5%) with corresponding body position field tests on flat or 5% incline hill. From a subject pool of 50 subjects, 29 sucessfully completed all of the lab and field tests. Correlational anaylsis of the different tests revealed similarities between increased workload of hill sitting and flat sitting field tests, the increased workload standing vs normal standing WnAT, and the increased workload sitting vs normal sitting WnAT. Finnaly all flat field tests were significantly correlated with the standing and sitting normal WnAT as well as the +5% increase WnAT. Field sprint sitting and standing tests were there significant correlations. Increased resistance lab sprint tests correlated with with standard resistance setting sprint lab tests. Standing and sitting field sprint tests did not correlate with any lab sprint tests. The flat sprint field tests correlated with all the lab sprint tests. Non-sign if icant standing field tests suggest that a greater degree of skill complexity may be required to complete the standing test which which requires a greater degree of muscular involvement when sprinting (supporting, as well as propelling themselves). The results indicated the important relationship of designing specific duration tests to test specific power measures in human subjects. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Drs. Kathy Miller, Richard Lane, Michael Zupan, Don Latham, Thomas Whiddon, and Lawrence Burger for their continued inspiration and encouragement. Special thanks to the Missoula, MT; Spokane, WA; and Salt Lake City, UT; area cyclists for their persistance and interest in the completion of this research. W.C.F.A III Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ iü APPENDIX LIST .................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... vii Chapter One. THE PROBLEM Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Problem ................................................................................................4 Hypothesis ...............................................................................................................4 Delimitations .......................................................................................................... 5 Limitations............................................................................................................... 5 Assumptions .............................................................................................................5 Definitions ........................................................................................................ 6 Chapter Two. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Physiological Overview .......................................................................................8 Methodological Overview ......................................................................................... 9 Chapter Three. METHODOLOGY Subject Selection ............................................................................................... 12 Testing Procedures ............................................................................................... 13 Preliminary Testing .................................................... .................................. 13 Field Test.............................................................................................................. 13 Lab Test ........................................................................................................... 13 Questionnaire .....................................................................................................13 Instruments and Test Protocol ...........................................................................14 Preliminary and Main Study Tests ...............................................................14 Field Test .......................................................................................................... 14 Chapter Four. RESULTS & DISCUSION Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................. 15 Hypothesis I ......................................................................................................17 Hypothesis II .........................................................................................................17 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 18 Hypothesis I ...................................................................................................18 Hypothesis II ..................................................................................................19 Chapter Five. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS General Recommendations for Research ............................................................ 20 Trained Cyclists ......................................................................................................20