Document Type

Article

Journal/Book Title/Conference

International Journal of Exercise Science

Volume

11

Issue

4

Publisher

Western Kentucky University

Publication Date

10-1-2018

First Page

980

Last Page

986

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare power outputs of the flying start to the stationary start method on an electromagnetically–braked cycle ergometer. Twenty advanced resistance-trained men (age 24.6 ± 4.5 years; 25.4 ± 2.5 kg/m2) volunteered to participate in this study. A counter-balanced, repeated-measures design was utilized to randomly assign participants to either the flying start or the stationary start for their first Wingate test. Paired t tests were used to evaluate mean differences between start methods. Peak power (PP), mean power (MP), total work (TW), peak cadence (PC), mean cadence (MC), and time to reach peak power (TPP) were recorded. Start method revealed significant differences for PP (p < 0.01; flying start = 1,111 ± 42 W vs. stationary start = 854 ± 41 W) and PC attainment (p < 0.01; flying start = 167 ± 7 RPM vs. stationary start = 128 ± 5 RPM). Start method did not significantly affect MP (p=0.73; flying start 673 ± 30 W vs. stationary start 657 ± 34 W) or MC (p=0.61; flying start 102 ± 5 RPM vs. 99 ± 4 RPM). The flying start method allowed for not only a greater PP but also a faster TPP (0.24 ± 0.02 seconds). In contrast, TPP was not attained until approximately one-third of the stationary start test (10.3 ± 0.4 seconds). This study showed that the traditional flying start allowed higher PP and PC outputs when compared to the alternative stationary start method in a sample of advanced resistance-trained male participants.

Download

Share

COinS