ArticleJournal of lifestyle medicine2019
Comparison of Forward and Reverse Wingate Anaerobic Tests: A Brief Technical Note.
Article in Journal of lifestyle medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Wingate anaerobic test (WAT) is traditionally performed in the forward pedaling direction on a cycle ergometer. However, reverse (backward) pedaling during a WAT test may be a novel way to convey meaningful information related to performance and rehabilitation. This study compared peak power measurements between 30-second forward pedaling WAT (FWAT) with a 30-second reverse pedaling WAT (RWAT).
methods10 male and 10 female participants (age 27.6 ± 7.31 yrs, mass 74.9 ± 21.3 kg and height 172.6 ± 10.9 cm) volunteered to participate. Participants performed one FWAT and one RWAT at 7.5% of body mass on a specially modified Monark cycle ergometer. Tests were separated 2 days of rest. Peak power output (PPO), mean power output (MPO), relative PPO (RPPO), relative MPO (RMPO), fatigue index (%FI), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured.
resultsThe FWAT power measurements were all significantly greater (p < 0.05) than RWAT power measurements except MPO (p > 0.05); and that RPE was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in FWAT than RWAT. Specifically, FWAT vs. RWAT (M ± SD) are as follows: PPO watts (w) = 731.7 ± 237.1 vs. 529.6 ± 192.2; RPPO w/kg = 10.2 ± 2.3 vs. 7.2 ± 1.6; MPO w = 510.2 ± 162.1 vs. 415.1 ± 146.2; RMPO w/kg = 7.3 ± 1.5 vs. 5.8 ± 1.3; %FI = 49.2 ± 8.7 vs. 37.4 ± 13.7; and RPE = 19.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15.8 ± 1.5. Gender did not impact the relative differences in these relationships.
conclusionPractitioners and clinicians may use this information to begin to understand the power and perceived exertion relationships of forward versus reverse pedaling during a WAT; exercise prescription for rehabilitation and performance may benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.