Huskey T, Mayhew J L, Ball T E, Arnold M D
Ergonomics. 1989 Aug;32(8):959-65. doi: 10.1080/00140138908966857.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of three approach distances and two vertical ascent methods on approach velocity, vertical velocity and power output of the Margaria-Kalamen test. Male (n = 43) and female (n = 53) university students were tested using a traditional and a modified (ramp) Margaria-Kalamen test with approaches of 2, 6 and 10m. The average of five trials for each approach distance was used to calculate anaerobic power. Males averaged 14.0% greater approach velocity, 28.8% greater vertical velocity and 41.1% greater power output than females, regardless of approach distance or vertical ascent method. Anaerobic power output was not significantly different between the sexes for any method when the effects of the percentage of fat and lean body mass were removed by the covariance technique. The 2m approach produced significantly slower approach velocity, vertical velocity and power output than the other approaches. The ramp method resulted in significantly greater approach velocity (11.5%), vertical velocity (9.6%) and anaerobic power output (9.4%) than the stair method. Males averaged 8.4% higher power output using the ramp, while females averaged 11.0% higher than the conventional stair method. Females appeared to benefit more than males from using a ramp in the anaerobic power test. Anaerobic power measurement from the Margaria-Kalamen method can be maximized using a ramp method.
本研究的目的是确定三种助跑距离和两种垂直上升方法对玛加里亚－卡拉门测试的助跑速度、垂直速度和功率输出的影响。使用传统的和改良的（斜坡）玛加里亚－卡拉门测试对43名男性和53名女性大学生进行测试，助跑距离分别为2米、6米和10米。每种助跑距离的五次试验的平均值用于计算无氧功率。无论助跑距离或垂直上升方法如何，男性的平均助跑速度比女性快14.0%，垂直速度快28.8%，功率输出高41.1%。当通过协方差技术消除脂肪百分比和瘦体重的影响时，任何方法下两性的无氧功率输出均无显著差异。2米助跑产生的助跑速度、垂直速度和功率输出明显慢于其他助跑距离。斜坡方法产生的助跑速度（11.5%）、垂直速度（9.6%）和无氧功率输出（9.4%）明显高于楼梯方法。男性使用斜坡时的平均功率输出比传统楼梯方法高8.4%，而女性则高11.0%。在无氧功率测试中，女性似乎比男性从使用斜坡中受益更多。使用斜坡方法可以使玛加里亚－卡拉门方法的无氧功率测量最大化。
