Gender differences in anaerobic power tests
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 wordsAnaerobic power Test specificity Sex difference
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- Bosco B, Mognoni P, Luhtanen P (1983) Relationship between isokinetic performance and ballistic movement. Eur J Appl Physiol 51:357–364Google Scholar
- Clarke HH (1967) Application of measurement to health and physical education, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 66–71Google Scholar
- Cureton TK (1947) Physical fitness appraisal and guidance. Mosby, St. Louis, p 403Google Scholar
- 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
- Fox EL, Bowers RW, Foss ML (1988) The physiological basis of physical education and athletics, 4th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 674–676Google Scholar
- 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
- Mayhew JL (1986) Specificity among anaerobic power tests in untrained males and females. Ann ISEF L'Aquila 5:399–405Google Scholar
- Mayhew JL, Hampton BK, Armstrong W (1981) Task specificity among power tests in college males. Kansas AHPER J 49:5–7Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Smith LE (1961) Relationship between explosive leg strength and performance in the vertical jump. Res Q 38:405–408Google Scholar