European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 100, Issue 6, pp 645–651 | Cite as

Cross-validation of the 20- versus 30-s Wingate anaerobic test

  • C. Matthew LaurentJr.Email author
  • Michael C. Meyers
  • Clay A. Robinson
  • J. Matt Green
Original Article


The 30-s Wingate anaerobic test (30-WAT) is the most widely accepted protocol for measuring anaerobic response, despite documented physical side effects. Abbreviation of the 30-WAT without loss of data could enhance subject compliance while maintaining test applicability. The intent of this study was to quantify the validity of the 20-s Wingate anaerobic test (20-WAT) versus the traditional 30-WAT. Fifty males (mean ± SEM; age = 20.5 ± 0.3 years; Ht = 1.6 ± 0.01 m; Wt = 75.5 ± 2.6 kg) were randomly selected to either a validation (N = 35) or cross-validation group (N = 15) and completed a 20-WAT and 30-WAT in double blind, random order on separate days to determine peak power (PP; W kg−1), mean power (MP; W kg−1), and fatigue index (FI; %). Utilizing power outputs (relative to body mass) recorded during each second of both protocols, a non-linear regression equation (Y 20WAT+10 = 31.4697 e−0.5[ln(X second/1174.3961)/2.63692]; r 2 = 0.97; SEE = 0.56 W kg−1) successfully predicted (error ∼10%) the final 10 s of power outputs in the cross-validation population. There were no significant differences between MP and FI between the 20-WAT that included the predicted 10 s of power outputs (20-WAT+10) and the 30-WAT. When derived data were subjected to Bland–Altman analyses, the majority of plots (93%) fell within the limits of agreement (±2SD). Therefore, when compared to the 30-WAT, the 20-WAT may be considered a valid alternative when used with the predictive non-linear regression equation to derive the final power output values.


Leg power Work capacity Cycle ergometry Sprint test 


  1. Allen DG, Westerblad JA, Lee JA, Lannergren J (1992) Role of excitation–contraction coupling in muscle fatigue. Sports Med 13:116–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American College of Sports Medicine (1997) Policy statement regarding the use of human subjects and informed consent. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:5Google Scholar
  4. Ansley L, Robson PJ, Gibson A, Noakes TD (2004) Anticipatory pacing strategies during supramaximal exercise lasting longer than 30 s. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Or O (1987) The Wingate anaerobic test: an update on methodology, reliability and validity. Sports Med 4:381–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Or O, Dotan R, Inbar O (1977) A 30 s all-out ergometric test: its reliability and validity for anaerobic capacity. Isr J Med Sci 13:126Google Scholar
  7. Beneke R, Pollmann C, Bleif I, Leithauser RM, Hutler M (2002) How anaerobic is the Wingate anaerobic test for humans? Eur J Appl Physiol 87:388–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnley M, Doust JH, Jones AM (2005) Effects of prior warm-up regime on severe-intensity cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:838–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calbet JA, De Paz JA, Garatachea N, Cabeza de Vaca S, Chavarren J (2003) Anaerobic energy provision does not limit Wingate exercise performance in endurance-trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol 94:668–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis JA (1985) Anaerobic threshold: review of the concept and directions for future research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17:6–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gastin PB (2001) Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise. Sports Med 31:725–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Granier P, Mercier B, Mercier J, Anselme F, Prefaut C (1995) Aerobic and anaerobic contribution to Wingate test performance in sprint and middle-distance runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 70:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groussard C, Machefer G, Rannou F (2003) Physical fitness and plasma non-enzymatic antioxidant status at rest and after a Wingate test. Can J Appl Physiol 28:79–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs I, Bar-Or O, Karlsson J, Dotan R, Tesch P, Kaiser P, Inbar O (1982) Changes in muscle metabolites in females with 30-s exhaustive exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14:457–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaczkowksi W, Montgomery DL, Taylor AW, Klissouras V (1982) The relationship between muscle fiber composition and maximal anaerobic power and capacity. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 22:407–413Google Scholar
  17. Marquardt JA, Bacharach DA, Kelly JM (1993) Comparison of power outputs generated during 20 and 30 s Wingate tests. Res Q Exerc Sport 64:A33–A34Google Scholar
  18. Mastrangelo MA, Chaloupka EC, Kang J, Lacke CJ, Angelucci JA, Martz WP, Biren GB (2004) Predicting anaerobic capacity in 11–13 year-old boys. J Strength Cond Res 18:72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maud PJ, Schultz BB (1989) Norms for the Wingate anaerobic test with comparison to another similar test. Res Q Exerc Sport 60:144–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Medbø JI, Tabata I (1993) Anaerobic energy release in working muscle during 30 s to 3 min of exhausting bicycling. J Appl Physiol 75:1654–1660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy MM, Patton JF, Frederick FA (1986) Comparative anaerobic power of men and women. Aviat Space Environ Med 57:636–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith JC, Hill DW (1991) Contribution of energy systems during a Wingate power test. Br J Sports Med 25:196–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ulmer HV (1996) Concept of an extracellular regulation of muscular metabolic rate during heavy exercise in humans by psychophysiological feedback. Experientia 52:416–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Someren KA, Palmer GS (2003) Prediction of 200-m sprint kayaking performance. Can J Appl Physiol 28:505–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vanderford ML, Meyers MC, Skelly WA, Stewart CC, Hamilton KL (2004) Physiological and sport-specific skill response of Olympic youth soccer athletes. J Strength Cond Res 18:334–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vandewalle H, Heller J, Pérès G, Raveneau S, Monod H (1987a) Etude comparative entre le Wingate test et un test force-vitesse sur egocycle. Sci Sports 2:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandewalle H, Pérès G, Monod H (1987b) Standard anaerobic exercise tests. Sports Med 4:268–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vincent S, Berthon P, Zouhal H, Moussa E, Catheline M, Betue-Ferrer D, Gratas-Delamarche A (2004) Plasma glucose, insulin and catecholamine responses to a Wingate test in physically active women and men. Eur J Appl Physiol 91:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Matthew LaurentJr.
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael C. Meyers
    • 2
  • Clay A. Robinson
    • 3
  • J. Matt Green
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Human Performance Research Laboratory, Department of Sports and Exercise SciencesWest Texas A&M UniversityCanyonUSA
  3. 3.Department of AgricultureWest Texas A&M UniversityCanyonUSA

Personalised recommendations