The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 2 braking forces (8.7 and 11% of body mass, BM) on Wingate test performance, peak lactate ([La]pk), peak heart rate (HRpk), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Sixteen male physical education students (age: 22.7 ± 1.3 years, height: 1.81 ± 0.07 m, BM: 74.3 ± 9.6 kg) performed, in a randomized order, 2 Wingate tests at 8.7% BM and 2 Wingate tests at 11% BM on a Monark cycle ergometer on 4 separate sessions. The results showed that the reliability level of mechanical measures was not affected by the braking force and was relatively similar for each variable in both braking forces (0.886 < ICC < 0.985). In addition, peak power, mean power, fatigue slope, and RPE were significantly higher (8.2, 7.0, 11.9, and 4.1%, respectively, all < 0.05) using a braking force of 11% BM compared with 8.7% BM, whereas there was no significant effect of braking force on [La]pk and HRpk. In conclusion, the results of this study suggested that the reliability of the Wingate test does not depend on the used load, and a braking force of 11% BM is more optimal for power output during Wingate test in active adults.

The optimal load for WT performance should be approximately equal to 10% BM in recreational subjects. In powerful subjects, the FVT appears to be more appropriate in assessing maximal power, and loads higher than 11% BM should be verified for the WT.

The present study examined the reliability of the force-velocity relationship during cycling and arm cranking exercises in active males and females. Twenty male and seventeen female physical education students performed three-session tests with legs and three-session tests with arms on a friction-loaded ergometer on six different sessions in a randomized order. The reliability of maximal power (P max), maximal pedal rate (V 0), and maximal force (F 0) were studied using the coefficient of variation (CV), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the test-retest correlation coefficient (r). Reliability indices were better for men (1.74 ≤ CV ≤ 4.36, 0.82 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.97, and 0.81 ≤ r ≤ 0.97) compared with women (2.34 ≤ CV ≤ 7.04, 0.44 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.98, and 0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.98) and in cycling exercise (1.74 ≤ CV ≤ 3.85, 0.88 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.98, and 0.90 ≤ r ≤ 0.98) compared with arm exercise (2.37 ≤ CV ≤ 7.04, 0.44 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.95, and 0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.95). Furthermore, the reliability indices were high for P max and F 0 whatever the expression of the results (raw data or data related to body dimensions). P max and F 0 could be used in longitudinal physical fitness investigations. However, further studies are needed to judge V 0 reliability.

The hypothesis that ethnicity and sport practice influence the relationship between maximal power in cycling (P(max)) and countermovement jump (CMJ) has been studied by relating CMJ and P(max) in two groups (volleyball players, VB, and physical education students, PES) including subjects with Caucasian (67 C) or West African (39 WA) origins. Maximal power of the arms (P(max) Arms) was also measured. A two-way analysis of variance (groups × ethnicity) showed significant effects of both factors upon CMJ, which was higher in WA and VB, P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively. Within WA, CMJ was significantly higher in VB (0.732 ± 0.057 m) than in PES (0.661 ± 0.082 m), although there was no difference in P(max) (14.7 ± 1.7 vs 14.7 ± 1.9 W/kg). CMJ was significantly higher in WA (0.69 ± 0.08 vs 0.65 ± 0.09 m in C, P = 0.002) without significant interethnic difference in P(max) (14.7 ± 1.8 in WA, and 14.8 ± 1.9 W/kg in C). The CMJ-P(max) relationships were different in C and WA (P = 0.003). Therefore, CMJ predicted from P(max) would be underestimated in WA. The same difference was observed for the relationship between CMJ and P(max) Arms. These results were confirmed by the comparison with previous P(max) -CMJ relationship in the literature, collected in Caucasian and African subjects with the same protocols.