Establishing a practical treadmill sprint as an alternative to the Wingate anaerobic test. Issue 2 (3rd April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McKie, Greg L.; Islam, Hashim; Townsend, Logan K.; Howe, Greg J.; Hazell, Tom J.
• Is Part Of: Measurement in physical education and exercise science. Volume 22:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 138
• Page End: 144
• Publication Date: 2018-04-03
• Subjects: validity -- reliability -- anaerobic performance -- running test -- high-intensity interval training; Physical fitness -- Testing -- Periodicals; Physical education and training -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Physical education and training -- Research -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1400974
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1091-367X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study examined the validity and reliability of a 30-second running sprint test using two non-motorized treadmills compared to the established Wingate Anaerobic Test. Twenty-four participants completed three sessions in a randomized order on a: (1) manual mode treadmill (Woodway); (2) specialized interval training treadmill (HiTrainer); and (3) Wingate cycle ergometer. In a subset of 15 participants, 2 additional sessions were completed on both treadmills to establish the test–retest reliability. Peak (Woodway: r = .68; HiTrainer: r = .58; p < .003), average (Woodway: r = .82; HiTrainer: r = .72, p < .001), and minimum (Woodway: r = .64; HiTrainer: r = .42, p < .043) speed indices were moderately to very strongly correlated with corresponding Wingate Anaerobic Test outputs and had excellent test–retest reliability (all intraclass correlation coefficients > .75). Fatigue index during the Wingate Anaerobic Test (51.20 ± 7.14%) was moderately correlated with the Woodway (32.9 ± 10.9%, r = .55, p = .005) only. This 30-second running sprint test may be a valid and reliable mode-specific alternative to the Wingate Anaerobic Test.