Gender differences in anaerobic power tests

  • J. L. Mayhew
  • Pamela C. Salm


The purpose of this study was to determine if the differences in anaerobic power between males and females could be accounted for by differences in body composition, strength, and neuromuscular function. A total of 82 untrained men and 99 women took part in the study. Body composition, somatotype, isometric strength, neuromuscular function were measured, and four anaerobic power tests performed. The men were significantly different from the women on all strength, power, and neuromuscular measurements except reaction time and on all anthropometric and somatotype dimensions except ectomorphy. Strength and anthropometric dimensions were similarly related to anaerobic power values within each sex. Relative fat (%fat) exerted different degrees of influence on sprint and jump performances in each sex. Removing the influence of anthropometric, strength, and neuromuscular differences by analysis of covariance reduced, but did not remove, the significant differences between the sexes. Therefore, factors other than lean body mass, leg strength, and neuromuscular function may be operating in short-term, explosive power performances to account for the differences between the sexes. The task-specific nature of anaerobic power tests and the relatively large influence of anthropometric factors on power production were confirmed.

Key words

Anaerobic power Test specificity Sex difference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beckenholdt SE, Mayhew JL (1983) Specificity among anaerobic power tests in male athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 23:326–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergstrom J, Harris RC, Hultman E, Nordesjo LO (1971) Energy rich phosphogens in dynamic and static work. In: Perrow B, Saltin B (eds) Muscle metabolism during exercise. Plenum Press, New York, pp 341–355Google Scholar
  3. Bishop P, Cureton K, Collins M (1987) Sex differences in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women. Ergonomics 30:675–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosco B, Mognoni P, Luhtanen P (1983) Relationship between isokinetic performance and ballistic movement. Eur J Appl Physiol 51:357–364Google Scholar
  5. Bruyn-Prevost P de, Sturbois X (1984) Physiological response of girls to aerobic and anaerobic endurance tests. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 24:149–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke HH (1967) Application of measurement to health and physical education, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  7. Considine WJ, Sullivan WJ (1973) Relationship of selected tests of leg strength and leg power on college men. Res Q 44:404–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cureton KJ, Collins MN, Hill DW, McElhannon JM (1988) Muscle hypertrophy in men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20:338–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cureton TK (1947) Physical fitness appraisal and guidance. Mosby, St. Louis, p 403Google Scholar
  10. Davies BN, Greenwood EJ, Jones SR (1988) Gender difference in the relationship of performance in the handgrip and standing long jump tests to lean limb volume in young adults. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:315–320Google Scholar
  11. Fox EL, Bowers RW, Foss ML (1988) The physiological basis of physical education and athletics, 4th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 674–676Google Scholar
  12. Fukunaga T, Matsuo A, Yuasa K, Fujimatsu H, Asahina K (1980) Effect of running velocity on external mechanical power output. Ergonomics 23:123–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison GG, Buskirk ER, Carter JEL, Johnston FE, Lohman TG, Pollock ML, Roche AF, Wilmore J (1988) Skinfold thicknesses and measurement technique. In: Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martoreli R (eds) Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 55–70Google Scholar
  14. Heath BH, Carter JEL (1967) A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol 27:57–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson AS, Pollock ML (1978) Generalized equations for predicting body density in men. Br J Nutr 40:497–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A (1980) Generalized equations for predicting body density in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12:175–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Maud PJ, Shultz BB (1986) Gender comparisons in anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity tests. Br J Sports Med 20:51–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayhew JL (1986) Specificity among anaerobic power tests in untrained males and females. Ann ISEF L'Aquila 5:399–405Google Scholar
  19. Mayhew JL, Hampton BK, Armstrong W (1981) Task specificity among power tests in college males. Kansas AHPER J 49:5–7Google Scholar
  20. Rutherford OM, Greig CA, Sargeant AJ, Jones DA (1986) Strength training and power output: transference effects in the human quadriceps muscle. J Sports Sci 4:101–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Serresse O, Ama PFM, Simoneau JA, Lortie G, Bouchard C, Boulay MR (1988) Anaerobic performances of sedentary and trained subjects. Can J Sport Sci 14:46–52Google Scholar
  22. Siri WE (1961) Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of methods. In: Brozek J (ed) Techniques for measuring body composition, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC, pp 78–79Google Scholar
  23. Sloan AW (1967) Estimation of body fat in young men. J Appl Physiol 23:311–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sloan AW, Burt JJ, Blyth CS (1962) Estimation of body fat in young women. J Appl Physiol 17:967–970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith LE (1961) Relationship between explosive leg strength and performance in the vertical jump. Res Q 38:405–408Google Scholar
  26. Stuart KB, Gray RK, Glencross DJ, Walsh A (1966) A factorial investigation of power, speed, isometric strength, and anthropometric measures in the lower limb. Res Q 37:553–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilmore JH (1974) Alterations in strength, body composition and anthropometric measurements consequent to a 10-week weight training program. Med Sci Sports 6:133–138PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Mayhew
    • 1
  • Pamela C. Salm
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Performance LaboratoryNortheast Missouri State UniversityKirksvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical EducationValpariaso UniversityValpariasoUSA

Personalised recommendations