Wingate Test for Performance Enhancement

Overseen By Erin McCallister, DPT

Age: 18 - 65

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport

Disqualifiers: Inability to back squat, Pregnancy

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: 4

34 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

The goal of this trial is to see if using a maximal effort, short cycling test is better at activating muscles to improve vertical jump height compared to a maximal effort back squat. The study looks to answer three questions: 1. will the Wingate bike test create a different change in counter movement jump height compared to a back squat? 2. What is the best recovery period after each test where the counter movement jump is the highest? 3. What person-specific factors predict success of the Wingate bike test as a activation activity for the counter movement jump? Participants will visit the lab 3 times, once to give informed consent and measure their 1 repetition max (RM) back squat, and twice to perform each intervention and measure vertical jump height.

Do I need to stop taking my current medications for this trial?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Back Squat, Wingate Test for performance enhancement?

The research suggests that different stretching protocols can impact performance on the Wingate Test, which is used to measure anaerobic power. While the studies focus on stretching, they highlight the importance of preparation methods in enhancing performance, which could indirectly support the effectiveness of combining the Wingate Test with other treatments like the Back Squat for performance enhancement. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Is the Wingate Test safe for humans?

The research articles reviewed do not provide specific safety data for the Wingate Test, but they focus on performance metrics and the effects of different conditions on test outcomes. ^{2 3 6 7 8}

How does the Wingate Test for Performance Enhancement differ from other treatments?

The Wingate Test for Performance Enhancement is unique because it focuses on measuring and enhancing anaerobic power through high-intensity cycling, which is different from traditional treatments that may not specifically target anaerobic power. This test is often used to assess short-term power output and is particularly relevant for athletes looking to improve their performance in sports requiring bursts of high-intensity effort. ^{2 3 9 10 11}

Research Team

Erin McCallister, DPT

Principal Investigator

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for individuals looking to enhance their athletic performance, specifically in vertical jump height. Participants should be able to perform a maximal effort cycling test and back squat. They must visit the lab three times, including once for consent and measuring their max back squat.

Inclusion Criteria

Successful completion of the physical activity readiness questionnaire plus

At least 1 year of back squat weight training experience

I am a healthy adult.

Exclusion Criteria

I am currently pregnant.

I cannot back squat 1.4 times my body weight.

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

1 week

1 visit (in-person)

Baseline Assessment

Participants provide informed consent, have anthropometrics taken, and perform a 1 repetition max (RM) test for the back squat

1 week

1 visit (in-person)

Intervention

Participants perform either the back squat or Wingate bike test to potentiate vertical jump height, with CMJ reassessed at 3, 6, and 9 minutes post-intervention

2 weeks

2 visits (in-person)

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for any delayed effects of the interventions on vertical jump height

1 week

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Back Squat
• Wingate Test

Trial Overview The study tests whether a high-intensity cycling test (Wingate) or a maximal effort back squat better activates muscles to increase vertical jump height. It also explores optimal recovery time between efforts and which personal factors predict success with the Wingate test as an activation method.

Participant Groups

Group I: Wingate test Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Participants will perform the Wingate bike test, with resistance at 7.5% of body weight, with a maximal effort for 30 seconds.

Group II: Back squat Active Control 1 Intervention

Participants will perform 2 sets of 3 repetitions at 85% of their 1 repetition maximum weight for the back squat

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport

Lead Sponsor

Trials

52

Recruited

19,400+

Findings from Research

The study found that the optimal load for the Wingate test (WT) performance in recreational athletes is approximately 10% of their body mass, which helps maximize their peak power output.

In highly trained individuals, the peak power measured during the WT can significantly underestimate their maximal power calculated from the force-velocity test, especially at lower loads, indicating that the force-velocity test may be a better method for assessing maximal power in these athletes.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Comparative Study Between the Wingate and Force-Velocity Anaerobic Cycling Tests: Effect of Physical Fitness. Jaafar, H., Rouis, M., Attiogbé, E., et al.[2016]

Static stretching before the Wingate test (WAnT) significantly decreased peak power output in 13 recreationally active males, with peak power dropping from 802.6 W to 768.8 W after stretching.

The study suggests that static stretching may negatively impact performance in anaerobic capacity tests, indicating that athletes should reconsider their warm-up routines before high-intensity efforts.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Acute effects of static stretching on Wingate testing in men. Miller, JM.[2020]

In a study with 15 male participants, different stretching methods were tested before performing the Wingate test, revealing that dynamic stretching (DS) resulted in lower mean power compared to proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching.

All stretching types, including no stretching, led to a longer time to reach peak power, indicating that the choice of stretching method can significantly impact performance in sports requiring maximal anaerobic power.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Acute effects of three different stretching protocols on the wingate test performance. Franco, BL., Signorelli, GR., Trajano, GS., et al.[2021]

The abbreviated Wingate test (15-secT) demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for peak power output (PPO) and mean power output (MPO) in a study of 69 young adults, making it a reliable tool for assessing anaerobic performance.

The test also showed good criterion-related validity when compared to the standard 30-second Wingate test, indicating that it can effectively measure power outputs without significant differences in results, although the fatigue index (FI) was lower in the 15-secT.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Test-retest reliability, criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of score on an abbreviated Wingate test for field sport participants. Hachana, Y., Attia, A., Nassib, S., et al.[2016]

The study involving 10 recreationally active participants found that different warm-up protocols significantly affect peak power during the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT), highlighting the need for consistency in warm-up methods across studies.

While dynamic stretching was hypothesized to improve peak power more than static stretching, the results did not show a significant difference, suggesting that further research with larger sample sizes is needed to clarify the effects of various warm-up protocols.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Acute Effects of Static Stretching Compared to Dynamic Stretching with and without an Active Warm up on Anaerobic Performance. Kendall, BJ.[2019]

Visual feedback can enhance peak power output during the initial stage of a hockey-specific intermittent Wingate test, suggesting it may help athletes perform better when they are not fatigued.

However, the benefits of visual feedback diminish in later stages of the test, indicating that while it can boost early performance, it does not contribute to fatigue or hinder performance in subsequent stages.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Role of Visual Feedback on Power Output During Intermittent Wingate Testing in Ice Hockey Players. Stastny, P., Tufano, JJ., Kregl, J., et al.[2020]

The study established norms for the Wingate test in 186 physically active young adults (112 males and 74 females aged 18 to 28), providing valuable benchmarks for assessing anaerobic power.

Results showed strong correlations (0.66 to 0.87) between mean power measures from the Wingate test and a similar cycle ergometer test (Katch test), indicating that both tests can be used effectively to evaluate physical performance.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Norms for the Wingate anaerobic test with comparison to another similar test. Maud, PJ., Shultz, BB.[2008]

The single-leg Wingate Test (SLWAnT) is a highly reliable method for measuring unilateral muscle power, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98 across trials, indicating consistent performance results.

An equation was developed to estimate the optimal braking force for the SLWAnT based on body mass, which can be used to enhance performance assessment in individuals of varying ages and maturity levels.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Single-leg Wingate Test in children: reliability and optimal braking force. Hebestreit, H., Dunstheimer, D., Staschen, B., et al.[2019]

The Kansas squat test (KST) is a reliable measure of lower-body anaerobic power for resistance-trained men, showing high stability in power measurements across multiple trials.

The KST correlates well with the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) in terms of mean and maximum power outputs, but it emphasizes different metabolic responses, as indicated by lower lactate levels compared to the WAnT.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Kansas squat test: a reliable indicator of short-term anaerobic power. Fry, AC., Kudrna, RA., Falvo, MJ., et al.[2016]

In a study with 11 participants, peak power (PP) during repeated Wingate trials showed that a self-selected warm-up led to the highest peak power output, while no warm-up and intense warm-ups did not significantly improve performance.

The results suggest that familiarization trials and adequate recovery are essential for accurate maximal power testing, as participants showed improved performance in the second trial after a no warm-up condition compared to the first trial.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Peak power during repeated wingate trials: implications for testing. Kohler, RM., Rundell, KW., Evans, TM., et al.[2016]

The Kansas squat test (KST) shows strong concurrent validity with the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) for measuring lower-body anaerobic power in track and field athletes, with high correlation coefficients for maximum and mean power.

The KST is a practical and specific test for assessing lower-body power, demonstrating significantly higher peak and mean power compared to the WAnT, while also indicating that the WAnT results in greater relative fatigue and lactate response.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Kansas Squat Test: A Valid and Practical Measure of Anaerobic Power for Track and Field Power Athletes. Luebbers, PE., Fry, AC.[2019]

References

1. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Comparative Study Between the Wingate and Force-Velocity Anaerobic Cycling Tests: Effect of Physical Fitness. [2016]

2. Italy pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Acute effects of static stretching on Wingate testing in men. [2020]

3. Turkey pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Acute effects of three different stretching protocols on the wingate test performance. [2021]

4. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Test-retest reliability, criterion-related validity, and minimal detectable change of score on an abbreviated Wingate test for field sport participants. [2016]

5. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Acute Effects of Static Stretching Compared to Dynamic Stretching with and without an Active Warm up on Anaerobic Performance. [2019]

6. Switzerland pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Role of Visual Feedback on Power Output During Intermittent Wingate Testing in Ice Hockey Players. [2020]

7. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Norms for the Wingate anaerobic test with comparison to another similar test. [2008]

8. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Single-leg Wingate Test in children: reliability and optimal braking force. [2019]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Kansas squat test: a reliable indicator of short-term anaerobic power. [2016]

10. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Peak power during repeated wingate trials: implications for testing. [2016]

11. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Kansas Squat Test: A Valid and Practical Measure of Anaerobic Power for Track and Field Power Athletes. [2019]