VALIDITY OF THE RUNNING ANAEROBIC SPRINT TEST
FOR ASSESSING ANAEROBIC POWER AND PREDICTING
SHORT-DISTANCE PERFORMANCES
ALESSANDRO M. ZAGATTO,1,2 WLADIMIR R. BECK,1
1
Laboratory of Research in Exercise Physiology, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Brazil; and
2
Department of Physical Education, Laboratory of Sport Physiology Applied, Sao Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Zagatto, AM, Beck, WR, and Gobatto, CA. Validity of the
running anaerobic sprint test for assessing anaerobic power
and predicting short-distance performances. J Strength Cond
Res 23(6): 1820–1827, 2009—The purpose of this study was
to investigate the reliability and validity of the running anaerobic
sprint test (RAST) in anaerobic assessment and predicting
short-distance performance. Forty members of the armed
forces were recruited for this study (age 19.78 6 1.18 years;
body mass 70.34 6 8.10 kg; height 1.76 6 0.53 m; body fat
15.30 6 5.65 %). The RAST test was applied to six 35-meter
maximal running performances with a 10-second recovery
between each run; the peak power, mean power, and the
fatigue index were measured. The study was divided in two
stages. The first stage investigated the reliability of the RAST
using a test-retest method; the second stage aimed to evaluate
the validity of the RAST comparing the results with the Wingate
test and running performances of 35, 50, 100, 200, and 400 m.
There were not significant differences between test-retest
scores in the first stage of the study (p . 0.05) and were found
significant correlations between these variables (intraclass cor-
relation coefficient @0.88). The RAST had significant correla-
tions with the Wingate test (peak power r = 0.46; mean power
r = 0.53; fatigue index r = 0.63) and 35, 50, 100, 200, and
400 m performances scores (p , 0.05). The advantage of using
the RAST for measuring anaerobic power is that it allows for the
execution of movements more specific to sporting events that
use running as the principal style of locomotion, is easily applied
and low cost, and due to its simplicity can easily be incor-
porated into routine training. We concluded that this procedure
is reliable and valid, and can be used to measure running
anaerobic power and predict short-distance performances.
Address correspondence to Dr. Claudio A. Gobatto, cgobatto@
pq.cnpq.br.
23(6)/1820–1827
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1820 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
AND CLAUDIO A. GOBATTO2
KEY WORDS running test, anaerobic component, running
performance, Wingate test, lactate
INTRODUCTION
S
everal procedures have been developed to estimate
the power and/or capacity of the skeletal muscle
energy production in the anaerobic pathway. Some
of these procedures used to estimate this parameter
are maximum accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) (11,14),
Wingate test (WAnT) (2,4,7), maximal anaerobic running test
(MART) (17), Margaria staircase running test (16), tethered
tests (8,9,17), vertical jump tests (17), and many others.
However, even though these procedures are the most com-
monly used, there is not a gold standard procedure for
evaluating anaerobic capacity and power (17). The MAOD
and WAnT are the best known and accepted protocols in
this category, measuring anaerobic capacity and anaerobic
power and capacity, respectively (26). The practical uses of
some these tests do not normally require the use of expen-
sive equipment and/or much time for application. The
WAnT is easier to apply as it only needs 30 seconds on a
cycle ergometer (1,4,7). It has been shown to be an excellent
predictor of anaerobic power (10,26), is reproducible (27),
and is a good performance predictor in short-distance
sporting events (7,13,22).
Because of its scientific acceptance as a good procedure for
assessment of anaerobic power and capacity, the cycling
WAnT has been used as standard procedure to verify the
validity of anaerobic evaluation tests in different sportive
modalities, such as MART (17) and the tethered running test
(14,30) in running, anaerobic work capacity from the critical
power model (AWC) in table tennis (29), and others. The
WAnT has also been used to evaluate the anaerobic training
status of runners (9) and is a good predictor of short-distance
performances in running (15,22,24). However, for more
specificity in the evaluation procedure, the cycling WAnT
has been adapted to other motor events, such as the
arm ergometer (6,10), tethered swimming (specifically for
swimming) (18,20), tethered running (14,30), and recently
the running anaerobic sprint test (RAST) (28).

The RAST was developed by Wolverhampton University
(United Kingdom) adapted from the original WAnT to assess
the anaerobic power and capacity measuring the peak power
(PP), mean power (MP), and fatigue index (FI) variables (28).
The RAST consists of six 35-m maximal sprints with a 10-
second recovery. By measuring body mass and running times,
it is possible to determine the power of effort in each sprint
(power = (body mass 3 distance2)/time3). The results of the
RAST can give an estimate of the neuromuscular and energy
determinants of maximal anaerobic performance, and it
seems to be a good option for the evaluation protocol for
to be used in sports that have the running as principal
form of locomotion, such as soccer, athletics, basketball, and
handball (1).
In recent studies, the RAST has been significantly cor-
related with AWC and WAnT, which suggests that the RAST
could be used to assess the anaerobic power and capacity in
running (28). The RAST is a very attractive procedure for
practical application because it is an easily applied method.
In practice, however, the RAST test still needs more
investigation about the test-retest reliability and validity of
this protocol of evaluation. Therefore, the purposes of this
study were: (a) to evaluate of the RAST test-retest reliability;
(b) to investigate the validity of the RAST as a protocol for
assessing anaerobic power; and (c) to determine if the RAST
is a good predictor of performance in short-distance events.
The research hypotheses in the study were that test-retest
RAST scores give similar results in all variables; there are
significant correlations between RAST and WAnT scores;
and the RAST is a good predictor of 35-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and
400-meter performances.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The muscle strength, power, FI, and aerobic and anaerobic
capacity of the athletes and nonathletes can be measured
using field and laboratory tests. The WAnT is an important
tool for measuring anaerobic power and capacity of humans
(2,4,7,20,23,30) and it has been commonly used to evaluate
sporting performance by measuring muscle power and
obtaining knowledge about muscle metabolism during
short-term, high-intensity exercise (3). The WAnT has been
an important test for validation of other anaerobic tests, and
not only used in cycling, but also in specific tests for running
(14,17,28,30), table tennis (29), and other ergometers and
sports, and used for prediction of performance in running
(15,24). Because of the scientific acceptance of WAnT, it was
used to verify the validity of RAST, which is an adaptation of
WAnT for running. The development of anaerobic specific
tests for running that are easily applied and low cost is very
interesting for practical application.
For it to be applied in track running events and without use
of sophisticated equipment or ergometer, the RAST has an
advantage over other anaerobic tests, such as the MART (17),
tethered running (14,30) or Margaria staircase test. The other
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
tests require expensive equipment and sophisticated tech-
nological apparatuses (e.g., MART and tethered running) or
are performed in running up and down staircases, which is
not performed in a sporting activity (e.g., Margarita staircase
test). Thus, this study aimed to verify the reliability and
validity of a simple running test application. This study also
aims to show whether a significant correlation exists between
the RAST scores and short-distance performances.
Experimental Procedures
The research was conducted in the Laboratory of Research
in Exercise Physiology, Federal University of Mato Grosso
do Sul, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. The study was performed
in two stages. The first stage aimed to evaluate the reliability
of the RAST test performed twice (test and a retest) with
a minimum interval of 48 hours between assessments; the
second stage aimed to evaluate the validity of RAST as an
anaerobic test verifying correlation with the WAnT and with
the 35-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 400-m performances. Before each
procedure, the participants performed a 5-minute moderate
intensity warm-up and the tests were started approximately
5 minutes after warm-up. All procedures were applied at the
same time of day, with the RAST and running performances
test performed on a 400-meter running track and the WAnT
performed on a Monark cycle ergometer (Monark Ergomedic
894 E, Monark, Sweden). The subjects performed the tests
with clothes and shoes specifically designed for running.
Verbal encouragement was used in all tests to maintain the
maximum effort.
Subjects
Forty members of the armed forces were recruited to
participate in the study, all male volunteers (age 19.78 6
1.18 years; body mass 70.34 6 8.10 kg; height 1.76 6 0.53 m;
body fat 15.30 6 5.65%; body mass index 22.67 6 2.08
kg
m22). The subjects were moderately active; performed
military training including exercise; and some subjects were
involved in soccer, basketball, volleyball and athletics
recreationally. They all attended military training sessions
6 days a week for at least 3 years. Not all of the subjects
participated in both stages of the study, but in each stage the
same participants performed all the tests (n = 24 in first stage
and n = 17 in second stage; only one subject participated in
both stages). The subjects were informed of the risks and the
benefits of the tests and then signed an informed consent
form prior to testing approved by the Ethics Committee of
the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.
Running Anaerobic Sprint Test
Initially, the body mass was measured with all clothes used in
the RAST test. The RAST was applied with the participants
performing six 35-m maximal sprints with a 10-second
interval between each sprint. The time for each run was
measured by two photocells (CEFIS standard photocells,
Brazil) and the start for each sprint (10-second interval)
occurred with a beep from the photocell equipment. Velocity
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 6 | SEPTEMBER 2009 | 1821
Validity of the RAST for Assessing Anaerobic Power

and acceleration were deter-

mined by Speed Test Version
6.0 (CEFISE, Brazil), and the
power in each sprint was then
calculated by the formula
Power = (Body Mass 3 Dis-
tance2)/Time3. After the
RAST, 25 mL of blood were
collected from the ear lobe
at 1, 3, 5, and 7 minutes to
determine lactatemia. This pro-
cedure was applied three times:
in the first stage of the study
to analyze reliability (test and
Figure 1. Results of the power generated in each sprint (35 meters) of RAST obtained in test and retest. Results
retest method) and also in the are reported as mean and SE.
second stage to evaluate asso-
ciations with the other
procedures.
after calculated the peak power (PP) in the initial 5-second
Wingate Test period, mean power (MP) for 30 seconds, peak power per
Initially, the warm-up was performed (5 minutes) with 2- to 3- weight (PP/Wkg), mean power per weight (MP/Wkg), and
second duration flat-out sprints performed at the beginning of the fatigue index (FI = (peak power – minimum power/peak
the fourth minute of warm-up. Tests were started 5 minutes power) 3 100).
after the end of the warm-up period. The WAnT consisted of
exercise performed at maximal power for 30 seconds with an Running performance Tests
external resistance corresponding to 75 g
kg21 body mass. Five running performances tests were randomly applied
The cycle ergometer (Monark Ergomedic 894-E, Sweden) in distances of 35, 50, 100, 200, and 400 meters. The subjects
protocol began without external resistance, which was added were instructed to perform the runs in the shortest time
immediately after the test was initiated. Exercise time was possible. Times of runs were recorded using two photocells
recorded only after the external resistance was applied After (CEFISE standard photocells). The shortest RAST time was
30 seconds of effort, blood samples were collected at 1, 3, 5, considered as the 35-m performance value. The minimum
and 7 minutes for analysis of blood lactate concentration. interval between each distance was 24 hours. After each run,
Pedal revolution rate was determined by Monark Anaerobic blood samples were collected (25 mL) at 1, 3, 5, and 7 minutes
Test Software. Values were obtained at 5-second intervals and to lactatemia analysis. The absolute time of each run was

TABLE 1. Results of running anaerobic sprint test (RAST) and the intraclass correlation between variables obtained in first
stage of study.

RAST test (n = 24) RAST retest (n = 24)

Intraclass
Mean 6 SD Range Mean 6 SD Range correlation

Peak power (W) 751.04 6 123.63 538.30–961.41 730.33 6 89.90 560.73–899.58 0.92*
Mean power (W) 590.62 6 90.79 388.86–736.48 591.08 6 86.10 437.28–722.98 0.97*
Peak power per weight (W
kg21) 10.38 6 1.74 7.81–13.48 10.19 6 1.30 8.57–12.62 0.94*
Mean power per weight (W
Kg21) 8.20 6 1.34 5.78–10.33 8.19 6 1.12 6.50–10.24 0.97*
Fatigue index (%) 40.62 6 9.11 28.03–56.74 38.42 6 6.56 23.04–54.54 0.70*
Peak blood lactate 14.23 6 2.68 8.67–19.44 14.16 6 2.65 9.24–18.81 0.65*
concentration (mmol
L21)
Peak speed (m
s21) 7.09 6 0.38 6.50–7.80 7.07 6 0,29 6.70–7.60 0.94*
Mean speed (m
s21) 6.54 6 0.37 5.80–7.10 6.55 6 0.31 6.03–7.08 0.95*
Total effort time (s) 32.47 6 2.05 29.73–36.47 32.36 6 1.50 29.79–35.19 0.90*

*p , 0.05.

the TM

1822 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Figure 2. Reliability analysis of the RAST verified by Bland-Altman plots of RAST test-retest. A) Peak power. B) Mean power. C) Peak power per weight. D) Mean
power per weight. E) Fatigue index. F) Peak blood lactate concentration. G) Peak speed. H) Mean speed.

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 6 | SEPTEMBER 2009 | 1823

Validity of the RAST for Assessing Anaerobic Power

TABLE 2. Results of running anaerobic sprint test and Wingate test.

Running anaerobic sprint test (n = 17) Wingate test (n = 17)

Mean 6 SD Range Mean 6 SD Range

Peak power (W) 695.46 6 107.46 484.78–898.02 778.40 6 115.74† 518.99–922.65

Mean power (W) 555.20 6 77.30 408.83–745.88 629.28 6 84.25† 437.85–752.42
Fatigue index (%) 36.01 6 8.79 16.33–45.78 41.07 6 9.71† 21.74–53.57
Peak power per weight (W
Kg21) 10.17 6 1.54 8.05–13.54 11.34 6 1.31† 8.38–13.69
Mean power per weight (W
Kg21) 8.10 6 1.03 6.37–10.29 9.16 6 0.71† 7.54–10.19
Peak blood lactate concentration 15.70 6 3.39 10.68–21.75 13.77 6 2.67* 10.11–18.48
(mmol
L21)
*p , 0.05.
†p , 0.01.

taken as running performance (T35, T50, T100, T200,
and T400).
Blood Analysis
Blood samples (25 mL) were collected from a participant’s ear
lobe and transferred to a 1.5-mL Eppendorf tube containing
50 mL NaF (1% sodium fluoride). The homogenate was
injected (25 mL) into an electrochemical lactate analyzer
(YSI 1500 Sport, Yellow Springs, OH). The electrochemical
lactate analyzer was calibrated after every 5 blood
samples with standard 5.0 mmol
L21 lactate solution. Blood
lactate concentrations are expressed in millimoles per liter
(mmol
L21).
Statistical Analyses
Results are expressed as mean 6 SD or SE (Figure 1). Initially
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Liliefors tests were used to
analyze variable normality. All scores showed normality. In
the first stage, the RAST reliability was analyzed using
the Student’s t-test for dependent samples, the intraclass
correlation test (ICC; two-way fixed model, consistency
option, single score) and the Bland-Altman plots (1,3,5). In
the second stage, analysis of variance repeated measure
was used to compare lactate concentrations in the RAST,
Wingate, and performance tests, and product-moment
correlation analysis among RAST, WAnT and running
performances. In all cases, a probability level of 95% (p #
0.05) was used for statistical significance.
RESULTS
First Stage
The aim of this stage was verify the reliability of the RAST.
These results of RAST test performed twice are showed in
the Table 1. No significant differences were found between
RAST variables in two tests (test and retest), and these
variables showed significant correlation in the ICC test
(Table 1), verifying the reliability of test. Figure 1 shows
the power generation in each sprint of the RAST obtained in
test and retest methods. The other factors that corroborated
RAST’s reliability were Bland-Altman plots (5), which
showed excellent results of concordance in all variables
(Figure 2).

TABLE 3. Results of 35-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 400-meter performance tests (n = 17).

35 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 400 m

Speed (m
s21) 6.90 6 0.39 6.86 6 0.44 7.21 6 0.30*† 6.93 6 0.41‡ 6.01 6 0.38*†‡§
Time (s) 5.09 6 0.29 7.32 6 0.47* 13.90 6 0.56*† 28.96 6 1.83*†‡ 66.85 6 4.49*†‡§
Peak blood lactate — 7.31 6 2.19 9.96 6 1.00† 12.31 6 1.53†‡ 14.26 6 1.60†‡
concentration (mmol
L21)
*p , 0.01 versus 35-m score.
†p , 0.01 versus 50-m score.
‡p , 0.05 versus 100-m score.
§p , 0.01 versus 200-m score.

the TM

1824 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 4. Correlations between the running anaerobic sprint test (RAST) variables and performances scores of 35 (T35),
50 (T50), 100 (T100), 200 (T200) and 400 (T400) meters.

RAST PP MP FI PP/WKg MP/WKg LACPEAK TT

T35 20.99‡ 20.86‡ 20.47† 20.77‡ 20.57‡ 20.34 0.92‡

T50 20.78‡ 20.68‡ 20.34 20.63‡ 20.46† 20.02 0.78‡
T100 20.62‡ 20.64‡ 0.00 20.51† 20.45 20.31 0.57†
T200 20.67‡ 20.76‡ 20.12 20.52† 20.51† 20.17 0.78‡
T400 20.46† 20.68‡ 0.13 20.45† 20.59‡ 0.25 0.74‡

*PP = peak power; MP = mean power; FI = fatigue index; PP/WKg = peak power per weight; MP/WKg = mean power per weight;
LACpeak = peak blood lactate concentration; TT = total effort time.
†p , 0.05.
‡p , 0.01.

between the PP and the veloc-

ity at 35 m and between the
TABLE 5. Correlations between the Wingate test variables and performances scores MP/WKg and the velocity at
of 35 (T35), 50 (T50), 100 (T100), 200 (T200) and 400 (T400) meters.* 200 m (Table 5).
Wingate PP MP FI PP/WKg MP/WKg LACpeak

T35 20.44 20.47† 20.13 20.38 20.52† 20.10 DISCUSSION

T50 20.31 20.38 20.11 20.27 20.46 20.32 The intent of this study was to
T100 20.24 20.28 20.05 20.26 20.42 20.46
T200 20.36 20.34 20.26 20.41 20.51† 20.17
verify the reliability of the
T400 20.25 20.41 0.23 20.17 20.49 0.14 RAST variables in the first stage
of the study. There were no
*PP = peak power; MP = mean power; FI = fatigue index; PP/WKg = peak power per significant differences between
weight; MP/WKg = mean power per weight; LACpeak = peak blood lactate concentration.
†p , 0.05. the RAST using the test-retest
method, which showed signifi-
cant and high correlations veri-
fied by ICC test (1,3), and there
was a high level of concordance
Second Stage between scores verified by
This stage investigated the validity of RAST for assessment Bland-Altman plots (5). In these Bland-Altman analyses
the anaerobic power and its ability to predict short-distance (5), however, some results were outside the limits of agree-
performances. The total effort time (TT) found in RAST was ment (outliers); both means of differences and limits of
33.06 6 1.63 s. All the RAST variables were significantly agreement were found to be low, resulting in good reliability.
lower than WAnT scores (Table 2), but there were significant RAST reliability was initially investigated by Balciunas et al.
correlations found between the PP (r = 0.46), MP (r = 0.53), (1), which used young basketball athletes. They reported
and FI (r = 0.63). Peak blood lactate concentration high RAST reliability verified by product-moment coefficient
(LACpeak) from the RAST only was significantly correlated (r = 0.90). However, these authors did not mention which
with the FI (r = 0.48). However, in the WAnT, the peak variable of the RAST was analyzed. The reliability of the
lactate (LACpeak) was correlated with PP (r = 0.54), RAST is similar to that obtained in WAnT (7,29), maximal
PP/Wkg (r = 0.63), and MP/Wkg (r = 0.62). anaerobic running test (17), and tethered swimming (19).
The running performances ranged from 4.61–5.74 (T35), Verifying the reliability and reproducibility of an evaluation
6.47–8.09 (T50), 12.75–14.70 (T100), 27.03–34.18 (T200), and procedure is important for it to be scientifically accepted and
60.11–77.21 seconds (T400). The results of running perform- for its routine application in training (25). The RAST is an
ances are shown in Table 3. Nearly all the RAST variables adaptation of WAnT for running, in which the time of
(with exception of FI and LACpeak) were significantly exercise is very similar (@32 s in RAST and 30 s in WAnT),
correlated with all performances, but the MP/Wkg was not but in the RAST test the time and effort are dependent on the
correlated with the performance at 100 m (Table 4). For the physical ability of the subject to perform test. Spencer et al.
Wingate test variables, there were significant correlations (23) investigated a reliability of a similar test for hockey

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 6 | SEPTEMBER 2009 | 1825

Validity of the RAST for Assessing Anaerobic Power

applying 6 3 30 meter repeated sprints with 20 seconds Different studies have described correlations between
of recovery. WAnT and performances scores, and their findings are in
The RAST was first investigated by Zacharogiannis et al. investigations that used cycling WAnT and adapted the
(28), who verified significant correlations between the RAST Wingate test with muscular activities similar to sports
and the WAnT for PP and MP variables (r = 0.82 and r = 0.75, activities (10,20). When applying the procedures to running,
respectively) and related that the RAST could be used to body weight needs to be supported during effort in the same
measure the anaerobic capacity and power. Hodson and way as in specific running tests. Therefore, as well as the
Jones (12) also used the RAST test to evaluate the influence possibility of assessing anaerobic power, the evaluation
of caffeine ingestion on repeated sprint performance. In our procedure called RAST seems to also be best suited for short-
study, despite significant differences being found between the distance performance prediction confirming the hypotheses
RASTand Wingate scores, there were significant correlations generated from the study.
between PP, MP, and FI variables, but these correlations
were not high (r = 0.46; r = 0.53; and r = 0.63, respectively).
Nummela et al. (17) used the cycling WAnT to validate an PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
anaerobic running test called MART; there were significant
The findings of this study have shown the reliability and
correlations between the two tests. Zemková and Hamar (30)
validity of the RAST as an anaerobic evaluation procedure in
also found significant correlation between cycling WAnT
running. In many studies and also in daily routine training,
and a tethered running on the treadmill and concluded this
the WAnT test has been used as a method of measuring of
tethered running test as valid for measuring anaerobic power.
anaerobic power in several sports. However, the use of the
Similar results by Lima (14) found significant correlations
cycle ergometer for evaluation cannot be used to represent
between PP (r = 0.82) and PM (r = 0.79) of the WAnT and of
the complete muscular and motor activities found in most
the tethered track running tests.
sports. The advantage of using the RAST to measure
The RAST procedure can measure a power output of
anaerobic power is that it allows the execution of movements
inferior limbs similar to the WAnT, but uses running instead
more specific to sporting events that use running as their
of cycling and measures the power of effort using the
principal form of locomotion, and it can be easily applied by
individual body mass. The RAST, as well as WAnT, can be
trainers and coaches in training. To use RAST, one only needs
used to measure muscular strength and the capacity of the
to record the period of effort and measure body mass.
legs to generate power. In sports such as soccer, basketball,
Although there are other anaerobic running tests mentioned
and others, the use of this test is very interesting because of
in literature, such as MART (17), tethered running (30) on the
reduced financial costs and easy application. Anaerobic
treadmill and on the track (14), or the Margaria staircase test,
components are evaluated through repeated sprints such as
these tests need expensive equipment and sophisticated
those performed in several sports (12,21).
technological apparatuses, such as MART and tethered
The RASTalso seems to be a good procedure for prediction
running, or are performed in running on staircase, which is
of running performance, verified by high correlations between
not used in a sporting activity. Therefore, the RAST has
the RAST variables and the performances at 35, 50, 100,
practical advantages over these other running methods.
200, and 400 meters. The anaerobic contribution of these
Coaches and trainers can use a simple method of anaerobic
distances is very high and these correlations corroborate
assessment that does not require the use of sophisticated and
for the anaerobic characteristics of the RAST test. Only the
expensive equipment or running performed on a staircase or
FI and the LACpeak of the RAST did not show significant
inclination conditioning and performed in repeated sprints, as
correlations with the performance scores. Although FI and
occurs in some sports. However, more studies on this
LACpeak have been mentioned in literature as anaerobic
procedure are required, measuring other parameters of
glycolytic capacity predictors (2), the relationship between
RAST, such as anaerobic contribution and oxygen debit in
these variables and performances was not verified in this
tests. Our results have shown that the RAST is not only
study. But, the LACpeak found after RAST was approx-
a reliable and valid procedure to assess anaerobic power, but
imately 15 mmol.L21, exhibiting a significant contribution of
also a good predictor of short-distance running performances.
glycolytic pathway. Strangely, velocity over 100 m was
Because of its simplicity, it can easily be incorporated into
significantly higher than over 35 and 50 m. Possibly these
routine training.
individuals had a higher anaerobic glycolytic system in
relation to the phosphagenic system, verified by the high
mean velocities at 100, 200, and 400 m distances and by the
higher correlation values between MP than PP with ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
performances over these distances. Lima (14) also adapted This study was supported by Fundacxão de Apoio ao
the WAnT for tethered track running and also found Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado
significant correlations between performances over 60, 120, de Mato Grosso do Sul (FUNDECT 41/100.111/2006 and
240, and 300 m. 41/100.187/2006 and CNPq (301601/2006-2)).
the TM

1826 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


REFERENCES
1. Balciunas, M, Stonkus, S, Abrantes, C, and Sampaio, J. Long term
effects of different training modalities on power, speed, skill and
anaerobic capacity in young male basketball players. J Sports Sci Med
5: 163–170, 2006.
2. Bar-Or, O. The Wingate anaerobic test: An update on methodology,
reliability and validity. Sports Med 4: 381–394, 1987.
3. Bencke, J, Damsgaard, R, Saekmose, A, Jørsensen, P, Jørsensen, K,
and Klausen, K. Anaerobic power and muscle strength character-
istics of 11-year-old elite and non-elite boys from gymnastics, team
handball, tennis and swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12: 171–178,
2002.
4. Beneke, R, Pollmann, C, Bleif, I, Leithäuser, RM, and Hütler, M.
How anaerobic is the Wingate anaerobic test for humans. Eur J Appl
Physiol 87: 388–392, 2002.
5. Bland, JM and Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing
agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet
1: 307–310, 1986.
6. Blimkie, CJR, Roache, P, Hay, JT, and Bar-Or, O. Anaerobic power
of arms in teenage boys and girls: relationship to lean tissue. Eur J
Appl Physiol 57: 677–683, 1988.
7. Dotan, R and Bar-Or, O. Load optimization for the Wingate
Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol 51: 409–417, 1983.
8. Gastin, PB. Quantification of anaerobic capacity. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 4: 91–112, 1994.
9. Granier, P, Mercier, B, Mercier, J, Anselme, F, and Prefaut, C.
Aerobic and anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in
sprint and middle-distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
70: 58–65, 1995.
10. Hawley, JA and Williams, MM. Relationship between upper body
anaerobic power and freestyle swimming performance. Int J Sports
Med 12: 1–5, 1991.
11. Hill, DW, Davey, KM, and Stevens, EC. Maximal accumulated O2
deficit in running and cycling. Can J Appl Physiol 27: 463–478, 2002.
12. Hodson, B, and Jones, MA. The effect of caffeine ingestion on
repeated sprint performance. J Sports Sci 22: 281, 2004.
13. Koutedakis, Y and Sharp, NC. A modified Wingate test for
measuring anaerobic work of the upper body in junior rowers. Brit J
Sports Med 20: 153–156, 1986.
14. Lima, MCS. Standardization of the tethered running in sprint
athletes: Analysis of relation between power and performance in
running. Master’s thesis, Sao Paulo State University, Rio Claro,
Brazil, 2007.
15. Meckel, Y, Atterbom, H, Grodjinovsky, A, Ben-sira, D, and Rotstein,
A. Physiological characteristics of female 100 metre sprinters of
different performance levels. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35: 169–175,
1995.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
16. Nedeljkovic, A, Mirkov, DM, Pazin, N, and Jaric, S. Evaluation of
Margaria staircase test: the effect of body size. Eur J Appl Physiol
100: 115–120, 2007.
17. Nummela, A, Alberts, M, Rijntjes, RP, Luhtanen, P, and Rusko, H.
Reliability and validity of the maximal anaerobic running test. Int J
Sports Med 17: S97–S102, 1996.
18. Papoti, M, Zagatto, AM, Freitas Jr, PB, Cunha, SA, Martins, LEB,
and Gobatto, CA. Use of the y-intercept in the evaluation of the
anaerobic fitness and performance prediction of trained swimmers.
Rev Bras Med Esporte 11: 131–135, 2005.
19. Papoti, M, Martins, L, Cunha, S, Zagatto, A, and Gobatto, C.
Standardization of a specific protocol to determine the anaerobic
conditioning in swimmers during a 30 sec effort using load cells.
Rev Port Cien Desp 3: 36–42, 2003.
20. Papoti, M, Martins, LEB, Cunha, SA, Zagatto, AM, and
Gobatto, CA. Effects of taper on swimming force and swimmer
performance after an experimental ten-week training program.
J Strength Conditioning Res 21: 538–542, 2007.
21. Paton, CD, Hopkins, WG, and Vollebregt, L. Little effect of caffeine
ingestion on repeated sprints in team-sport athletes. Med Sci Sports
Exer 33: 822–825, 2001.
22. Perez-Gomez, J, Rodriguez, GV, Ara, I, Olmedillas, H, Chavarren, J,
González-Henriquez, JJ, Dorado, C, and Calbet, JAL. Role of muscle
mass on sprint performance: gender differences? Eur J Appl Physiol
102: 685–694, 2008.
23. Spencer, M, Fitzsimons, M, Dawson, B, Bishop, D, and Goodman, C.
Reliability of a repeated-sprint test for field-hockey. Aust J Sci Med
Sport 9: 181–184, 2006.
24. Tharp, GD, Newhouse, RK, Uffelman, L, Thorland, WG, and
Johnson, GO. Comparison of sprint and run times with
performance on the Wingate anaerobic test. Res Q Exer Sport
56: 73–76, 1985.
25. Thomas, JR, Nelson, JK, and Silverman, SJ. Research Methods in
Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
26. Vandewalle, H, Pérès, G, and Monod, H. Standard anaerobic
exercise tests. Sports Med 4: 268–289, 1987.
27. Weinstein, Y, Bediz, C, Doton, R, and Falk, B. Reliability of peak-
lactate, heart rate, and plasma volume following the Wingate test.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1456–1460, 1998.
28. Zacharogiannis, E, Paradisis, G, and Tziortzis, S. An evaluation of
tests of anaerobic power and capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: S116,
2004.
29. Zagatto, AM, Papoti, M, and Gobatto, CA. Anaerobic capacity may
not be determined by critical power model in elite table tennis
players. J Sports Sci Med 7: 54–59, 2008.
30. Zemková, E and Hamar, D. ‘‘All-out’’ tethered running as an
alternative to Wingate anaerobic test. Kinesiology. 36: 165–172,
2004.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 6 | SEPTEMBER 2009 | 1827