See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51635885

Mechanically Braked Elliptical Wingate Test: Modification Considerations,

Load Optimization, and Reliability

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · September 2011

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822e81ab · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

6 489

4 authors:

Ozgur Ozkaya Muzaffer Colakoglu

Ege University, Sport Science Faculty Ege University
86 PUBLICATIONS   160 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   423 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Oncu erinc Kuzucu Engin Yildiztepe

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Dokuz Eylul University
7 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Critical Power View project

Effect of Sodium Nitrate on Cardiovascular Drift View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ozgur Ozkaya on 04 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MECHANICALLY BRAKED ELLIPTICAL WINGATE TEST:
MODIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS, LOAD
OPTIMIZATION, AND RELIABILITY
OZGUR OZKAYA,1 MUZAFFER COLAKOGLU,2 ERINC O. KUZUCU,1
1
Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey;
2
Coaching Education Department, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey; and 3Department of
Statistics, Dokuz Eylu¨l University, Izmir, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Ozkaya, O, Colakoglu, M, Kuzucu, EO, and Yildiztepe, E.
Mechanically braked elliptical wingate test: modification con-
siderations, load optimization, and reliability. J Strength Cond
Res 26(5): 1313–1323, 2012—The 30-second, all-out Wing-
ate test evaluates anaerobic performance using an upper or
lower body cycle ergometer (cycle Wingate test). A recent
study showed that using a modified electromagnetically braked
elliptical trainer for Wingate testing (EWT) leads to greater
power outcomes because of larger muscle group recruitment.
The main purpose of this study was to modify an elliptical trainer
using an easily understandable mechanical brake system
instead of an electromagnetically braked modification. Our
secondary aim was to determine a proper test load for the EWT
to reveal the most efficient anaerobic test outcomes such as
peak power (PP), average power (AP), minimum power (MP),
power drop (PD), and fatigue index ratio (FI%) and to evaluate
the retest reliability of the selected test load. Delta lactate
responses (DLa) were also analyzed to confirm all the anaerobic
performance of the athletes. Thirty healthy and well-trained male
university athletes were selected to participate in the study. By
analysis of variance, an 18% body mass workload yielded
significantly greater test outcomes (PP = 19.5 6 2.4 Wkg21,
AP = 13.7 6 1.7 Wkg21, PD = 27.9 6 5 Ws21, FI% = 58.4 6
3.3%, and DLa = 15.4 6 1.7 mM) than the other (12–24%
body mass) tested loads (p , 0.05). Test and retest results for
relative PP, AP, MP, PD, FI%, and DLa were highly correlated
(r = 0.97, 0.98, 0.94, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.95, respectively). In
conclusion, it was found that the mechanically braked
modification of an elliptical trainer successfully estimated
anaerobic power and capacity. A workload of 18% body mass
was optimal for measuring maximal and reliable anaerobic
power outcomes. Anaerobic testing using an EWT may be
Address correspondence to Ozgur Ozkaya, ozozkaya@gmail.com.
26(5)/1313–1323
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND ENGIN YILDIZTEPE3
more useful to athletes and coaches than traditional cycle
ergometers because a greater proportion of muscle groups are
worked during exercise on an elliptical trainer.
KEY WORDS elliptical trainer, work load, cycle ergometer
INTRODUCTION
T
he cycle Wingate test (CWT) has been
the traditional method used to estimate anaerobic
power and capacity (2,16). However, from the
1970s to the present, the reliability and validity of
the CWT have been criticized regarding its test loads (6,12),
test duration (8), calculation of power outcomes (4), and
inertial effect of the flywheel (13,14,17,22). In recent years,
the Wingate Institution recommended the use of higher test
loads than was originally suggested. Additionally, new
software has allowed the use of different starting proce-
dures, test durations, second by second data analyses, and
inertia correction.
The CWT continues to be examined by correlating its
noninvasive anaerobic outcomes with histochemical values,
metabolic contributions, and physiological responses. Current
questions about the CWT include the following: ‘‘Why does
the Wingate test not lead to a considerable depletion of
anaerobic energy reserves as expected?’’ and ‘‘How anaerobic is
the CWT anaerobic test (5)?’’
Work production capacity is closely related to active muscle
mass involvement. With the cycle ergometer, the lack of activity
pattern specificity may be the most important factor limiting the
proportion of activated muscle mass during Wingate testing.
To overcome this limitation, elliptical trainers have been tested
regarding active muscle mass; exercise on elliptical trainers was
found to result in greater muscle activity than was exercise on
classic cycle ergometers (7). Elliptical trainers have also been
found to be effective devices for estimating metabolic responses
(3,15,23). Laboratory tests, able to predict aerobic power
noninvasively by using submaximal (1,10) and maximal (9)
incremental graded tests, and a military physical fitness test (21)
have been developed on elliptical trainers.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1313
 Elliptical Wingate Test

Ozkaya et al. (19,20) modi-

fied an electromagnetically
braked elliptical trainer to eval-
uate anaerobic performance.
Using the same Wingate pro-
tocol, they demonstrated the
disadvantages of cycle testing
(20). Greater power outcomes
were obtained with the modi-
fied elliptical test compared
with those of the CWT (19),
and reliable retest results were
observed with this modification
(20). Electronic system config-
urations are generally more
complicated than their coun-
terpart mechanic system con-
Figure 1. Mechanically braked system: (1) handle bar, (2) stepping transmission bar, (3) foot platform, (4) 40° figurations (11) and may have
inclined platform providing greater leg movement pattern, (5) crank, (6) large cogwheel, (7) revolutions per minute
(rpm) counter, (8) chain, (9) small cogwheel, (10) flywheel, (11) rope, (12) pulley, (13) signaler, (14) handle, (15) standardization problems in the
load scale (weight basket), (16) weights, (17) interface, and (18) computer. future, as technology advances.
The main purpose of this
study was to modify an elliptical
trainer with a mechanic brake
system (EWT) instead of
an electromagnetically braked
system, making it a more vali-
d and reliable research tool in the
laboratory. The secondary aims
of the study were to determine
the optimum test load for the
EWT and measure the retest
reliability of this load to best
measure anaerobic outcomes.
Figure 2. Expected (logical) graph patterns for the Wingate test protocol using an elliptical trainer. Peak power
(PP) appears in the first (A) or second (B) segment, whereas minimum power (MP) is in the last segment. Power
drop (PD) and fatigue index ratio (FI%) can be calculated correctly at the end of the test. METHODS
Experimental Approach to the
Problem
This study consisted of 3 phases:
(a) an engineering study to design a new test ergometer for
testing anaerobic performance, (b) a pilot study to narrow
down (restrict) the load interval for the primary study, and (c)
TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics for the 30 male a primary study to determine a proper test load to reveal the
athlete participants.*
most efficient anaerobic test outcomes and to evaluate the
Characteristic Value retest reliability of the selected test load.

Age (y) 20.5 6 1.6 Subjects

Weight (kg) 74.1 6 11.7
Height (cm) 180 6 0.1 The University Ethics Committee approved the study
Body mass index (kgm22) 23.5 6 2.7 protocol. All the participants were informed about the
Percent body fat (%) 13.0 6 4.4 possible effects of malnutrition, inadequate food or fluid
Fat mass (kg) 10.0 6 4.6 intake, and other risks potentially related to the study, and
Fat-free mass (kg) 64.1 6 8.1 written informed consent was obtained. Thirty healthy male
*Results are mean 6 SD. university athletes were allowed to participate in the study
with regard to their anaerobic performance (Table 1). All the
volunteers underwent an average of 4–6 training sessions per
the TM

1314 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

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

week in their particular sports

disciplines and had an average
sports participation back-
ground of 8.8 6 2.1 years.

Modification Studies. A mechan-

ically braked elliptical trainer
(Precor Experience series EFX
576i, Precor, Inc., Woodinville,
WA, USA) was modified using
the original interface and soft-
ware of a traditional CWT
(Monark 834E, Varberg, Swe-
den) to assess anaerobic power
and capacity outcomes such as
Figure 3. Improper (illogical) graph patterns for the Wingate test protocol using an elliptical trainer.
peak power (PP), average
power (AP), minimum power

TABLE 2. Error case scores for tested loads for the elliptical Wingate test.

Loads
(% of body mass) Error-1 Error-2 Error-3 Error-4 Error-5 Error-6 Total score

L-12*
L-13 0 3 5 3 3 5 19
L-14 0 1 3 1 2 2 9
L-15 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
L-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L-21 0 0 2 0 0 2 4
L-22 3 3 2 2 1 0 11
L-23 5 4 4 4 3 0 21
L-24†
*Test pattern was a plateau from the beginning to the end.
†The test was unable to be completed.

TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics of selected loads (16–20% of body mass) for the 30 male athlete participants using
a mechanically braked elliptical trainer for the Wingate test.*†

Loads PP (Wkg21) AP (Wkg21) PD (Ws21) FI (%) DLa (mM)

L-16 16.6 6 1.5 12.7 6 1.2 18.9 6 4.2 46.1 6 5.8 13.1 6 1.5
L-17 18.1 6 1.9 13.0 6 1.5 23.7 6 4.6 53.2 6 4.7 14.6 6 1.5
L-18 19.5 6 2.4 13.7 6 1.7 27.9 6 5.0 58.4 6 3.3 15.4 6 1.7
L-19 18.7 6 2.9 13.2 6 1.8 25.8 6 5.9 55.8 6 4.3 15.3 6 2.2
L-20 17.1 6 2.6 12.3 6 1.6 21.6 6 5.4 50.9 6 4.9 14.3 6 2.0
*PP = peak power; AP = average power; PD = power drop; FI% = fatigue index ratio; DLa = delta lactate.
†Results are mean 6 SD.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1315

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Elliptical Wingate Test

using data attained from illog-

ical (improper) interrelations
TABLE 4. Variance homogeneity test (Mauchly’s test of sphericity) for PP, AP, FI%, among 5-second segments of
and DLa using 16–20% of body mass as test loads.* 30-second all-out tests (20).
Within-subject Mauchly’s Approximate For this purpose, these 5-sec-
effect W chi-square df p† ond segments of 30-second
test duration were numbered
PP 0.086 67.283 9 0.000 from 1 to 6. Expected segmen-
AP 0.391 25.724 9 0.002
FI% 0.238 39.407 9 0.000 tal order (Figure 2) was exam-
DLa 0.214 42.241 9 0.000 ined by using error detection
criteria as follows:
*PP = peak power; AP = average power; FI% = fatigue index ratio; DLa = delta lactate. The segment number of PP
†p , 0.01.
has to be lower than the
segment number of MP. If so,
it is expected (zero points), if
(MP), power drop (PD), and fatigue index ratio (FI%) not, it is an error (one point).
(Figure 1). E.1. If PP Segment No , MP Segment No 0 Expected Ô0 pointsÕ;
The large cogwheel was placed at the rear of the original if not 0 Error Ô1 point.Õ
elliptical trainer (6). Movements on the elliptical trainer using The segment number of PP has to be lower than that of the
parts 1–4 were transferred to the large cogwheel (6) via the third segment. If so, it is expected (zero points), if not, it is an
original crank (5). This movement was then transferred by error (one point).
the chain (8) to the small cogwheel (9), which in turn caused E.2. If PP Segment No , 30 Expected Ô0 pointsÕ; if not 0 Error
the 1.5-m flywheel (10) to revolve. The braking system was Ô1 point.Õ
provided using a rope running around the circumference of The segment number of MP has to be higher than that of
the flywheel, attached to a pulley (12) and weight system the fifth segment. If so, it is expected (zero points), if not, it is
(14–16). A starting signal was provided via the signaler (13) an error (one point).
when the weights dropped. The rpm (revolutions per E.3. If MP Segment No . 5 0 Expected Ô0 pointsÕ; if not 0 Error
minute) calculator (7) provided data regarding revolutions Ô1 point.Õ
of the crank. All data were collected by an interface (17) and The power value of the second segment has to be higher
transferred to the computer (18). At the end of the test, than that of the power value of the third segment. If so, it is
absolute and relative power values were automatically expected (zero points), if not, it is an error (one point).
calculated by the original software system. E.4. If the value of the second segment . value of the third segment
Pilot Study. A pilot study was conducted using a large load 0 Expected Ô0 pointsÕ; if not 0 Error Ô1 point.Õ
range between 12% (L-12) and 24% (L-24) body mass The power value of the third segment has to be higher than
workload. The purpose of the pilot study was to narrow the power value of the fourth segment. If so, it is expected
(restrict) load intervals to determine a proper load range for (zero points), if not, it is an error (one point).
the primary study. Five well-trained volunteer sprinters E.5. If the value of the third segment . value of the fourth segment
(mean age 21 6 2 years) were selected to participate in the 0 Expected Ô0 pointsÕ; if not 0 Error Ô1 point.Õ
pilot study. An error detection procedure was administered The power value of the fourth segment has to be higher
than the power value of the fifth
segment. If so, it is expected
(zero points), if not, it is an error
TABLE 5. ANOVA for PP, AP, FI%, and DLa using 16–20% of body mass as test
(one point).
loads.*†
E.6. If the value of the fourth
Variables df Mean square F p‡ segment . value of the fifth
segment 0 Expected Ô0
PP 1.940 82.614 38.709 0.000
AP 2.958 10.850 20.920 0.000 pointsÕ; if not 0 Error Ô1
FI% 2.819 947.605 37.704 0.000 point.Õ
DLa 2.576 38.583 23.242 0.000
Following the error detection
*PP = peak power; AP = average power; FI% = fatigue index ratio; DLa = delta lactate; procedure, loads between L-16
ANOVA = analysis of variance. and L-20 were selected to be
†Greenhouse-Geisser test.
‡p , 0.001. used for testing with the
30 well-trained athletes in the
primary study.
the TM

1316 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

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

TABLE 6. Pairwise comparisons for PP using 16–20% of body mass as test loads on a modified elliptical trainer for the
Wingate test.*

95% Confidence
interval for difference
(I) Work load (% of (J) Work load (% of (I 2 J) Mean Standard
body weight) body weight) difference error p Lower limit Upper limit

L-16 L-17 21.490† 0.166 0.000 21.993 20.987

L-18 22.850† 0.279 0.000 23.698 22.002
L-19 22.110† 0.356 0.000 23.191 21.029
L-20 20.523 0.319 1.000 21.493 0.446
L-17 L-16 1.490† 0.166 0.000 0.987 1.993
L-18 21.360† 0.198 0.000 21.962 20.758
L-19 20.620 0.308 0.531 21.554 0.314
L-20 0.967† 0.298 0.030 0.061 1.873
L-18 L-16 2.850† 0.279 0.000 2.002 3.698
L-17 1.360† 0.198 0.000 0.758 1.962
L-19 0.740† 0.238 0.042 0.018 1.462
L-20 2.327† 0.250 0.000 1.569 3.085
L-19 L-16 2.110† 0.356 0.000 1.029 3.191
L-17 0.620 0.308 0.531 20.314 1.554
L-18 20.740† 0.238 0.042 21.462 20.018
L-20 1.587† 0.121 0.000 1.219 1.955
L-20 L-16 0.523 0.319 1.000 20.446 1.493
L-17 20.967† 0.298 0.030 21.873 20.061
L-18 22.327† 0.250 0.000 23.085 21.569
L-19 21.587† 0.121 0.000 21.955 21.219
*PP = peak power.
†p , 0.05.

Procedures
Elliptical Wingate Testing. All loads were randomly tested using
EWT for each volunteer. Warm-ups were performed at 20%
of each load. The velocity during the warm-up period
was 80–90 rpm, and the heart rates (HRs) were maintained
at approximately 120 bmin21. Three acceleration bursts
during the third, fourth, and fifth minutes, lasting 2–3
seconds each, with verbal cues were performed as warm-up.
At the end of the warm-up period, the subjects performed
dynamic stretching exercises using relevant muscle groups
during a 5-minute resting period. An unloaded time period,
lasting 2–3 seconds, was implemented to enable the subjects
to reach maximal revolution. By the time the workload was
administered, the 30-second all-out test duration had been
started. The participants received verbal motivation to
facilitate maximum anaerobic power and capacity results
during the tests.
Blood Lactate Analysis. Capillary blood samples were drawn
from participants’ fingertips at rest and at 5 minutes
postexercise. Total blood lactate concentrations were
analyzed using an electroenzymatic lactate analyzer (YSI
1500S, Yellow Springs Instruments, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH,
USA). Delta lactate (DLa) was calculated as postexercise
minus preexercise lactate concentration.
Heart Rate. At the end of the tests, HRs were recorded as beats
per minute by using a telemetric system (Polar RS400, Polar
Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland).
Elliptical Wingate Retesting. A retest study was performed
using the same standards on subsequent days at the same time
of the day. The PP, AP, MP, PD, FI%, and DLa responses were
compared with the initial test results.
Statistical Analyses
Results were evaluated using SPSS Version 15.0 software
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A repeated measures design
was used to estimate the most effective workload. Power
outcomes of all workloads were used as factor levels.
According to results of Mauchly’s test of sphericity, the
variance homogeneity assumption was not provided. The
Greenhouse-Geisser test was therefore used to conduct
a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Bonferroni
pairwise comparisons were used, as post hoc analysis, to
investigate which group was different in a positive di-
rection. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to
determine the linear correlation between tested variables.
Findings with a p # 0.05 were considered statistically
significant.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1317

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Elliptical Wingate Test

TABLE 7. Pairwise comparisons for AP using 16–20% of body mass as test loads on a modified elliptical trainer for the
Wingate test.*

95% Confidence interval

for difference
(I) Work load (% of (J) Work load (I 2 J) Mean Standard
body weight) (% of body weight) difference error p Lower limit Upper limit

L-16 L-17 20.360 0.144 0.181 20.796 0.076

L-18 21.037† 0.189 0.000 21.611 20.462
L-19 20.547 0.191 0.077 21.126 0.033
L-20 0.313 0.154 0.507 20.154 0.780
L-17 L-16 0.360 0.144 0.181 20.076 0.796
L-18 20.677† 0.141 0.000 21.106 20.247
L-19 20.187 0.165 1.000 20.689 0.316
L-20 0.673† 0.184 0.010 0.115 1.231
L-18 L-16 1.037† 0.189 0.000 0.462 1.611
L-17 0.677† 0.141 0.000 0.247 1.106
L-19 0.490† 0.137 0.013 0.073 0.907
L-20 1.350† 0.157 0.000 0.874 1.826
L-19 L-16 0.547 0.191 0.077 20.033 1.126
L-17 0.187 0.165 1.000 20.316 0.689
L-18 20.490† 0.137 0.013 20.907 20.073
L-20 0.860† 0.122 0.000 0.491 1.229
L-20 L-16 20.313 0.154 0.507 20.780 0.154
L-17 20.673† 0.184 0.010 21.231 20.115
L-18 21.350† 0.157 0.000 21.826 20.874
L-19 20.860† 0.122 0.000 21.229 20.491
*AP = average power.
†p , 0.05.

RESULTS
Pilot Study
The purpose of the pilot study was to narrow down load
intervals to ascertain the proper load range for the primary
study. According to the results of the pilot study, workloads
lower than L-13 led to a plateau in power graphs from the
beginning to the end of the test (Figure 3A). The FI% and PD
were zero or negative. All-out tests with workloads greater
than L-23 could not be completed because of exhaustion
(Figure 3B). These values were not consistent with test
outcomes that appear at the end of a correct Wingate
application. As expected, problems occurred with very low
(L-13, L-14, and L-15) and heavy workloads (L-23, L-22,
and L-21). Plateaus occurred in power graphs when L-13, L-
14, or L-15 loads were applied to the load scale (Figure 3C).
Because inertial effects stem from extreme velocities, the
subjects were not able to apply optimal force to the system.
Undulations occurred in power graphs when L-23, L-22, or
L-21 loads were applied because of extreme resistance
administrations (Figure 3D); thus, the subjects were not able
to reach the desired rpm values. Error scores of very low and
heavy workloads are displayed in Table 2.
Workloads between L-16 and L-20 revealed expected
(logical) power graph specificities as shown in Figure 2A,B.
the TM
The PP appeared in the first (A) or second (B) segment. The
MP was evident in the last segment. Because of satisfying the
requirements, PD and FI% could be calculated in a valid
fashion at the end of the test.
Primary Study
Descriptive statistics for the mean of PP, AP, FI%, and
DLa in L-16, L-17, L-18, L-19, and L-20 are shown in
Table 3.
According to results of Mauchly’s test of sphericity, the
assumption of variance homogeneity was not met (Table 4).
The Greenhouse-Geisser test was therefore used to conduct
a one-way ANOVA (Table 5).
Tested hypotheses were as follows:
Ho : mL16 ¼ mL17 ¼ mL18 ¼ mL19 ¼ mL20 ;
Ha: At least one of the m is different.
After the ANOVA test, it was concluded that at least
one mean value of PP, AP, FI%, and DLa was sig-
nificantly different from the remaining mean values
(p , 0.05). The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons test
was used as a post hoc analysis test to investigate group
differences.

1318 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

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

TABLE 8. Pairwise comparisons for FI% using 16–20% of body mass as test loads on a modified elliptical trainer for the
Wingate test.*

95% Confidence
interval for difference
(I) Work load (J) Work load (% of (I 2 J) Mean Standard
(% of body weight) body weight) difference error p Upper limit Lower limit

L-16 L-17 27.090† 1.255 0.000 210.903 23.277

L-18 212.333† 1.251 0.000 216.135 28.531
L-19 29.673† 1.336 0.000 213.732 25.615
L-20 24.837† 1.292 0.008 28.761 20.912
L-17 L-16 7.090† 1.255 0.000 3.277 10.903
L-18 25.243† 0.976 0.000 28.209 22.277
L-19 22.583 1.053 0.204 25.782 0.615
L-20 2.253 1.119 0.534 21.146 5.653
L-18 L-16 12.333† 1.251 0.000 8.531 16.135
L-17 5.243† 0.976 0.000 2.277 8.209
L-19 2.660† 0.807 0.026 0.208 5.112
L-20 7.497† 1.007 0.000 4.437 10.556
L-19 L-16 9.673† 1.336 0.000 5.615 13.732
L-17 2.583 1.053 0.204 20.615 5.782
L-18 22.660† 0.807 0.026 25.112 20.208
L-20 4.837† 0.485 0.000 3.363 6.310
L-20 L-16 4.837† 1.292 0.008 0.912 8.761
L-17 22.253 1.119 0.534 25.653 1.146
L-18 27.497† 1.007 0.000 210.556 24.437
L-19 24.837† 0.485 0.000 26.310 23.363
*FI% = fatigue index ratio.
†p , 0.05.

According to the results of the Bonferroni pairwise
comparisons test, PP and AP outcomes using L-18 were
significantly different from those of L-16, L-17, L-19, and
L-20 in a positive direction. These findings showed that L-18
was the most effective load for PP and AP values (p , 0.05,
Tables 6 and 7).
Also, the largest number of participants (70%) was able to
reach their best anaerobic power and capacity outcomes with
the L-18 test load.
The FI% values using both L-16 and L-18 were significantly
different from those of the remaining loads (L-17, L-19, and
L-20, p , 0.05). L-16 could not be selected as the optimal

Figure 4. Mean peak power (PP) and average power (AP) generated by 30 university male athletes on an elliptical Wingate trainer with test loads of 16, 17, 18,
19, and 20% of the body mass.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1319

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Elliptical Wingate Test

TABLE 9. Pairwise comparisons for DLa using 16–20% of body mass as test loads on a modified elliptical trainer for the
Wingate test.*

95% Confidence
interval for difference
(I) Work load (% of (J) Work load (% of (I 2 J) Mean Standard
body weight) body weight) difference error p Upper limit Lower limit

L-16 L-17 21.508† 0.183 0.000 22.065 20.951

L-18 22.258† 0.334 0.000 23.274 21.242
L-19 22.133† 0.306 0.000 23.063 21.203
L-20 21.139† 0.320 0.013 22.112 20.167
L-17 L-16 1.508† 0.183 0.000 0.951 2.065
L-18 20.750† 0.241 0.041 21.482 20.018
L-19 20.625 0.230 0.110 21.324 0.074
L-20 0.369 0.250 1.000 20.390 1.127
L-18 L-16 2.258† 0.334 0.000 1.242 3.274
L-17 0.750† 0.241 0.041 0.018 1.482
L-19 0.125 0.293 1.000 20.766 1.015
L-20 1.119† 0.305 0.010 0.193 2.044
L-19 L-16 2.133† 0.306 0.000 1.203 3.063
L-17 0.625 0.230 0.110 20.074 1.324
L-18 20.125 0.293 1.000 21.015 0.766
L-20 0.994† 0.138 0.000 0.573 1.415
L-20 L-16 1.139† 0.320 0.013 0.167 2.112
L-17 20.369 0.250 1.000 21.127 0.390
L-18 21.119† 0.305 0.010 22.044 20.193
L-19 20.994† 0.138 0.000 21.415 20.573
*DLa = delta lactate value.
†p , 0.05.

load because of very diminished power values; thus, L-18 was
the most effective load for FI% (Table 8).
The highest DLa values were observed after testing with L-18
and L-19 loads (15.4 6 1.7 and 15.3 6 2.2 mM, p . 0.05).
However, between these 2 loads, only L-18 yielded significantly
higher DLa values than the others did (p , 0.05; Table 9).
Overall, L-18 yielded the greatest anaerobic power and
capacity outcomes. The PP, AP, FI%, and DLa outcomes are
shown in Figures 4 and 5.
No significant differences were found between test and
retest results for the EWT (Ho was not rejected, p . 0.05).
The tested hypotheses were as follows:

Figure 5. Change in serum lactate concentration (postexercise minus preexercise, DLa) and fatigue index ratio (FI%) in 30 university male athletes on
a mechanically braked elliptical trainer for the Wingate test using test loads of 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20% of body mass.

the TM

1320 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

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

Figure 6. Mean power values in 5-second segments of 30-second all-out test and retest on a mechanically braked elliptical trainer for the Wingate test using L-18
test loads.

TABLE 10. Results of paired sample t-test and Pearson correlation (r) for the test and retest variables.*†

Variables Test Retest t p r

PP (W) 1,433.5 6 234.7 1,438.9 6 243.9 20.691 0.495 0.98

PP (Wkg21) 19.5 6 2.4 19.5 6 2.6 20.684 0.499 0.97
AP (W) 1,006.5 6 157.3 1,003.5 6 152.1 0.689 0.497 0.98
AP (Wkg21) 13.7 6 1.7 13.7 6 1.7 0.598 0.555 0.98
MP (W) 595 6 104.3 592.7 6 100.3 0.471 0.641 0.96
MP (Wkg21) 8.1 6 1 8.1 6 1.1 0.144 0.886 0.94
FI% 58.4 6 3.3 58.6 6 4.5 20.269 0.790 0.81
PD (Ws21) 28 6 4.9 28.2 6 5.9 20.710 0.483 0.95
PD (Ws21kg21) 0.38 6 0.06 0.38 6 0.07 20.819 0.419 0.91
DLa 15.4 6 1.8 15.6 6 2 21.712 0.098 0.95
HR 192.5 6 4.6 192.6 6 5.1 20.169 0.867 0.91

*Results are mean 6 SD.

†PP = peak power; AP = average power; MP = minimum power; FI% = fatigue index ratio; PD = power drop; DLa = delta lactate;
HR = heart rate.

 Ho: mtest 2 m retest = 0,
 Ha: mtest 2 m retest 6¼ 0.
Test and retest variables were highly correlated (Figure 6).
Pearson correlation coefficients are given in Table 10.
DISCUSSION
The popularity of elliptical trainers has been increasing in recent
years because of effective activation of both upper and lower
body muscle groups (7). Laboratory tests to predict VO _ 2max
noninvasively are now being performed using elliptical trainers
(1,9,10). Ozkaya et al. (19,20) previously showed that an
electromagnetically modified elliptical trainer could be used as
a reliable device for performing all-out anaerobic testing
because it provided greater power outputs than did traditional
devices (19,20). Although cycle ergometers, treadmills, and
nonmotorized treadmills are commonly used in exercise
laboratories, elliptical trainers are gaining acceptance as
alternative test devices in present day research.
Combining the advantages of mechanically braked cycle
ergometers, such as cost effectiveness, ease of calibration, and
reliability of result comparison (11,18), with the advantages of
modified elliptical trainers, such as higher anaerobic
performance production based on increased muscular
activity, optimal leg cycling pattern, and other factors
(7,19), may provide the overall best anaerobic testing
environment. For these reasons, we set out to implement
these ideas by combining the original brake system of a cycle
ergometer with the main frame of an elliptical trainer.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1321

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Elliptical Wingate Test
Regarding our secondary aim of determining the most
effective test load for well-trained adult male athletes, work-
loads lower than L-13 led to a plateau in the power graph from
the beginning to the end of the test in our pilot study. Because
of excessively low resistance, the subjects reached velocities
that were too high resulting in an extreme inertial effect on the
system. In contrast, it was not possible to complete the all-out
test with workloads greater than L-23 because of exhaustion.
The subjects could not reach optimal velocity grades against
this extremely high resistance, so FI% and PD could not be
calculated correctly. In the proper workload range, estimated
with the error detection procedure before the primary study,
L-18 was determined to be the most effective load for reaching
maximum anaerobic output for whole-body tests on the EWT.
Test and retest analyses of power outcomes were also highly
correlated with L-18. Although our load optimization analysis
determined 18% of body mass to be the ideal test load, load
optimization of the traditional Wingate test is still being
questioned. Taking into account widely accepted recommen-
dations for traditional cycle Wingate testing, the same load for
well-trained female athletes might also be appropriate; 25%
smaller workloads might be more suitable for younger, less
massive, or untrained persons (24).
Although the widely accepted workload for traditional cycle
ergometers is 6–10%, the optimal workload for the elliptical
trainer in our study was 18% of body mass. The estimated
optimal workload is closely related to body movement patterns
based on the specific configuration of the ergometers.
Although cycle ergometers principally activate either the
lower or upper body, both arms and legs can be used
simultaneously on an elliptical trainer. In the study by Browder
et al. (7), electromyography results indicate that movement
patterns on the elliptical trainers involved greater muscle
activity compared with that of cycle ergometers because of
differences in movement patterns. This may explain why the
optimal workload for an elliptical trainer was higher than the
workload widely used for cycle ergometers.
Additional problems occurred when heavier loads (i.e., L-24;
;24 kg for a 100-kg weighted subject) were tested on the
EWT: Some of the modifications we made were damaged. In
future studies, special ropes, chains, and larger load scales
should be used to make the EWT system stronger so that
heavier loads can be used without resulting in damage.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The mechanically braked elliptical modification is a reliable
and consistent device for measuring the maximum anaerobic
performance for the whole body. Anaerobic testing using this
modification may be more useful to athletes and coaches than
cycle ergometers because a greater proportion of muscle
groups are involved during exercise on an elliptical trainer.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to give special thanks to Professor
Cem Seref Bediz, M.D., Dokuz Eylul University Medical
the TM
1322 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Faculty, Department of Physiology, for his editorial assis-
tance. The authors would also like to thank the Acibadem
Health Group for the material support they provided. This
study was sponsored by the Acibadem Health Group,
Istanbul, Turkey.
REFERENCES
1. Armour, A, Michael, T, Zabik, R, Liu, Y, Dawson, M, and Carl, D.
Development of a submaximal exercise test to predict V_ O2max using
an elliptical trainer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 310, 2003.
2. Bar-Or, O. The Wingate anaerobic test: An update on methodology,
reliability and validity. Sports Med 4: 381–394, 1987.
3. Batte, AL, Darling, J, Evans, J, and Lance, LM. Physiologic response
to a prescribed rating of perceived exertion on an elliptical fitness
cross-trainer. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 43: 300–307, 2003.
4. Bell, W and Cobner, DV. Effect to individual time to peak power
output on the expression of peak power output in the 30-s Wingate
anaerobic test. Int J Sport Med 28: 135–139, 2007.
5. Beneke, R, Pullman, C, Bleif, I, Leithaufer, RM, and Hütler, M. How
anaerobic is the Wingate anaerobic test for human? Eur J Appl
Physiol 87: 388–392, 2002.
6. Bradley, AL and Ball, TE. The Wingate test: Effect of load on the
power outputs of female athletes and non-athletes. J Appl Sport Sci
Res 4: 193–199, 1992.
7. Browder, KD, Dolny, D, Cowin, B, Hadley, M, Jasper, C,
McAllister, T, Stewart, C, and Terrel, B. Muscle activation during
elliptical trainer and recumbent bike exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: 106, 2005.
8. Calbet, JAL, Chavarren, J, and Dorado, C. Fractional use of
anaerobic capacity during a 30- and a 45-s Wingate test. Eur J Appl
Physiol 76: 308–313, 1997.
9. Dalleck, LC, Kravitz, L, and Robergs, RA. Maximal exercise testing
using the elliptical cross-trainer and treadmill. J Exerc Physiol Online
7: 94–101, 2004.
10. Dalleck, LC, Kravitz, L, and Robergs, RA. Development of
a submaximal test to predict elliptical cross-trainer V_ O2max.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 278–283, 2006.
11. Dotan, R. The Wingate anaerobic test’s past and future and the
compatibility of mechanically versus electro-magnetically braked
cycle-ergometers. Eur J Appl Physiol 98: 113–116, 2006.
12. Dotan, R and Bar-Or, O. Load optimization for the Wingate
anaerobic test. Eur J Appl Physiol 51: 409–417, 1983.
13. Franklin, KL, Gordon, RS, Baker, JS, and Davies, B. Accurate
assessment of work done and power during a Wingate anaerobic
test. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 32: 225–232, 2007.
14. Franklin, KL, Gordon, RS, Davie, B, and Baker, JS. Assessing
accuracy of measurements for a Wingate test using the Taguchi
method. Sport Med 16: 1–14, 2008.
15. Hughes, NJ, Dolny, DG, Browder, KD, Cowin, B, Hedley, M,
Jasper, C, McAllister, T, Steward, C, and Terell, B. Ratings
of perceived exertion (RPE) during elliptical trainer, treadmill
bike and recumbent bike exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:
103, 2005.
16. Inbar, O, Bar-Or, O, and Skinner, JS. The Wingate Anaerobic Test.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.
17. MacIntosh, BR, Bryan, SN, Rishaug, P, and Norris, SR. Evaluation of
the Monark Wingate ergometer by direct measurement of resistance
and velocity. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 543–558, 2001.
18. Micklewright, D, Alkhatib, A, and Beneke, R. Mechanically versus
electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer: performance and
energy cost of the Wingate anaerobic test. Eur J Appl Physiol
96: 748–751, 2006.

19. Ozkaya, O, Colakoglu, M, Fowler, D, Colakoglu, S, and Kuzucu, OE.
Wingate anaerobic testing with a modified electro-magnetically
braked elliptical trainer, part II: Physiological considerations.
Isokinetic Exerc Sci 17: 115–119, 2009.
20. Ozkaya, O, Colakoglu, M, Ozgonenel, O, Fowler, D,
Colakoglu, S, and Tekat, A. Wingate anaerobic testing with
a modified electro-magnetically braked elliptical trainer, part I:
Methodological considerations. Isokinetic Exerc Sci 17: 107–113, 2009.
21. Parcer, SB, Griswold, L, and Vickers, RR. Development of an elliptical
trainer physical fitness test (final report: NHRC-06-06, XBNMRC/
MD). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center, 2006.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
22. Reiser II, RF, Broker, JP, and Peterson, ML. Inertial effects on
mechanically braked Wingate power calculations. Med Sci Sport
Exerc 32: 1660–1664, 2000.
23. Sweitzer, ML, Kravitz, L, Weingart, HM, Dalleck, LC, Chitwood, LF,
and Dahl, E. The cardiopulmonary responses of elliptical cross-
trainer versus treadmill walking in CAD patients. J Exerc Physiol
Online 5: 11–15, 2002.
24. Vandewalle, H, Peres, G, Heller, J, and Monod, H. All-out
anaerobic capacity tests on cycle ergometers: A comparative
study on men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol 54: 222–229,
1985.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 | 1323