Anaerobic endurance of young untrained male and female subjects

  • Sienkiewicz-Dianzenza E
  • Tomaszewski P
  • Iwańska D
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Study aim: To assess the anaerobic endurance of untrained male and female subjects by applying repeated maximal exercises. Material and methods: Untrained male subjects aged 23 - 27 years (n = 17, body height 170 - 197 cm, body mass 65 - 110 kg) and female ones aged 20 - 25 years (n = 10, body height 168 - 184 cm, body mass 55 - 86 kg) performed 6 maximal cycle ergometer (CE) exercises (64 flywheel revolutions each, spaced by 15 s intermissions, the load amounting to 75 g per kg body mass) and 6 bouts of 10 push-offs on an inclined plane device (IP). Mean and maximal relative power outputs were recorded, the ratio of the two - the performance index (PI), served as a measure of anaerobic performance. Results: Men attained significantly higher maximum power outputs than women in both tests but the respective PI values were in both genders alike. Highest power outputs amounted to 10.80 ± 0.91 and 9.45 ± 0.43 W/kg (cycle ergometer) for men and women, respectively, and to 20.06 ± 3.78 and 13.70 ± 1.88 W/kg (inclined plane) for men and women, respectively. No significant differences between genders were found for the PI values in either test but significant within-gender differences were detected between tests: mean PI values (±SD) amounted to 0.799 ± 0.052 and 0.850 ± 0.063 for men (p<0.01), and 0.803 ± 0.030 and 0.875 ± 0.078 for women (p<0.05), for CE and IP, respectively. Conclusions: The performance index enabled comparing male and female subjects, as well as different exercise tests consisting of repeated, short, maximal exercises, with respect to anaerobic endurance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sienkiewicz-Dianzenza, E., Tomaszewski, P., Iwańska, D., & Stupnicki, R. (2009). Anaerobic endurance of young untrained male and female subjects. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 1(2009), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10101-009-0005-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free