Bulbulian R, Jeong J W, Murphy M
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40506, USA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 Oct;28(10):1336-41. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199610000-00020.
The purpose of the study was to reexamine the relationship between the Wingate and Critical Power tests of anaerobic capacity (AC) and anaerobic reserve (AR), respectively. A second purpose was to observe gender differences. Both tests were administered to 16 female and 13 male subjects (N = 29) on a Monark cycle ergometer with six subjects repeating AR measurement. The results show that AC (240.2 +/- 30.5 J-kg-1, calculated from total work for 30 s) and AR (184.0 +/- 1.2 J.kg-1) were not well-correlated (r = 0.07, P > 0.72). When expressed as total energy independent of body mass, the relationship was significant but low (r = 0.41, P > 0.02). Since AR was 23% lower than AC, which is believed to underestimate true anaerobic capacity, the data suggest that the Critical Power and Wingate tests do not assess the same anaerobic compartments. AR from the Critical Power test may not include the energy component of anaerobic glycolysis. Therefore, intrinsic methodological and theoretical differences between the tests make the absolute comparison of AC and AR problematic.
该研究的目的是分别重新审视温盖特无氧能力（AC）测试与临界功率无氧储备（AR）测试之间的关系。第二个目的是观察性别差异。在莫纳克自行车测功仪上对16名女性和13名男性受试者（N = 29）进行了这两项测试，其中6名受试者重复进行了AR测量。结果表明，AC（根据30秒的总功计算得出，为240.2 +/- 30.5焦耳·千克-1）与AR（184.0 +/- 1.2焦耳·千克-1）的相关性不佳（r = 0.07，P > 0.72）。当以独立于体重的总能量表示时，两者的关系显著但较弱（r = 0.41，P > 0.02）。由于AR比AC低23%，据信这低估了真正的无氧能力，数据表明临界功率测试和温盖特测试评估的并非相同的无氧部分。临界功率测试中的AR可能不包括无氧糖酵解的能量成分。因此，这两项测试在方法和理论上的内在差异使得对AC和AR进行绝对比较存在问题。
