Correlations Between Anaerobic Power and Anaerobic Capacity

During exercise, the body utilizes two primarily different systems in regard to different categories of energy expenditure based on low intensity and long intervals, and high intensity and short intervals. The two systems, anaerobic and aerobic glycolysis, occur at different intervals during exercise and draw upon different energy expenditures depending on the type of power that is being exerted. Aerobic glycolysis occurs during exercises of long durations, while the anaerobic system is implemented during short, high intensity intervals.

The anaerobic system utilizes two different systems, the ATP/PC system and anaerobic glycolysis. ATP/PC is implemented during approximately the first 5 seconds of exercise, and is followed by anaerobic glycolysis. Anaerobic power, also referred to as peak power, can be described as the highest amount of energy utilized within a segment of a total time interval during a power test. Additionally, the measure of anaerobic capacity is derived from collected data of the total time interval and illustrates the total amount of work exerted in said interval (Smith & Hill, 1991, p. 196). Anaerobic capacity is most efficiently demonstrated when an individual or athlete suddenly performs a movement that is a quick and powerful bout of energy (Zupan, Arata, & Dawson, 2009, p. 2598). Anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity can be measured separately and by different tests and methods, however a correlation between the two is plausible.

Data collected of anaerobic capacity on a variety of individuals can possess a significant range of values, however there is scientific evidence proven that capacity that is sustained anaerobically has a relevant relationship with anaerobic power exerted by the same individuals (Medbo & Burgers, 1990, p. 501). The purpose of this experiment was to perform two differing power measure tests that express anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity, and to compare and contrast the two regarding efficiencies between their correlations.

The hypothesis for this experiment is that there is a moderately strong juxtaposition between the principles of anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity because without capacity there is no power and the two coexist due to the contribution of anaerobic systems and exertions within the body. MethodsThis experiment focuses on the performed Sergeant Jump Test and Wingate Test. For the Sergeant Jump test, there were four college-aged participants ranging from 19-21 years old. To begin the experiment, the equipment had to be presented correctly beginning with stabilizing the Vertec in order to adjust the pole length, so that the first vane was the exact height of the participant’s fingertips when the arm is raised. This initial step was repeated four different times due to the range of height of the total participants.

After the pole was adjusted, the participant stood under the apparatus and executed a stationary counter jump by squatting, swinging the arms up and hitting the highest achievable vane on the Vertec. This step was repeated a total of three times for each participant. While each participant jumped and reached a vane, an individual stood at the Vertec and held the pole to maintain stability. After each trial for each participant, another individual analyzed the Vertec and relayed to the group the highest vane reached by that participant. Each number was recorded by every member of the group. After receiving all of the data, the power was calculated by first converting inches displayed on each vane to centimeters. These measurements were then plugged into the power formula by multiplying it by 60. 7 plus 45. 3 times each participants body mass in kg. This value was then subtracted by 2055. These values were used to find the peak power output and mean power output. Each participant’s mean power output was compared to a provided ‘age group and gender classification chart’ to determine normative values. The Wingate test was performed by the same participants, (only 3 results were usable, however) and it involved each member of the group to assume a task such as adjusting the resistance, timing, counting pedal revolutions, and recording the values.

The bike seat was adjusted to provide a 5-10° bend of the knee for each participant which were instructed to remain seated for the duration of the trial. Each individual began their trial by maintaining a constant 50rpm at 1-1. 5 Kp for a timed two minutes. After the warm-up, the individual adjusting the resistance moved the knob to the Kp that coincided with their weight, and the individual on the bike pedaled for a constant 30 seconds at their strongest endurance. After each five seconds, a member would announce “five” and the counter would then announce the number of pedal revolutions within that interval in order for another member to record the value. This was repeated for each participant for every five seconds out of the total of 30 seconds, and the individuals then were to pedal at a decreased speed in order to cool down for 1-2 minutes. The resistance, revolutions, total number of revolutions, and power (W) were recorded. Peak anaerobic power, mean anaerobic power, total work, and the fatigue index were then calculated. The results for each participant were compared to a provided table illustrating ‘normative values of male and female young adults.’

The graph’s display is miniscule due to the minute number of members in the participating group, section 004, totaling to four individuals. After recording this data an additional time in the Excel graphing spreadsheet, the calculated and displayed correlation coefficient was 0. 981. The provided “interpretation of the strength of correlation results” chart (Table IX) illustrates that a ‘very strong’ correlation represents correlation coefficient values ranging from 0. 81-1. 00. According to this chart, it is evidently conveyed that the documented aerobic power for this specific group has a strong relationship with the documented aerobic capacity of the group.

Observing the presented correlation of the graph, it is conveyed by the line of best fit that there is a negative slope between the two mechanisms. According to the figure, these results can be interpreted that as the group’s anaerobic power increased during the Jump Test, the anaerobic capacity of the fatigue index decreased. This could mean that during the Jump Test, the more anaerobic power that was exerted to execute the test resulted in less anaerobic capacity that was implemented. Perhaps if there were more participants, the essential outcome of the graph and correlation coefficient would be different, and the results would be discussed and presented with divergent conclusions.

Discussion

Essentially, the major findings of this experiment reflect that anaerobic power does in fact have a relationship with anaerobic capacity. Even though anaerobic capacity demonstrates the extent of a specific energy exerted and anaerobic power reflects the degree of that exerted energy, both have a strong correlation with one another in regard to exercise, specifically pertaining to this experiment containing non-trained individuals. This logic can be interpreted that as the rate of possible exerted energy increases, the duration of this energy exertion decreases. This conclusion was derived from the negative slope presented in the graph from the line of best fit.

The gathered and analyzed data therefore corroborates the initial hypothesis that there is a strong relationship between anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity, in which the relationship was proven to be ‘very strong’ instead of the hypothesized ‘moderately strong’. Hence, the Wingate and Sergeant Jump tests are also related however the Wingate test is proven to be less effective than the Sergeant Jump test when it comes to the analyzation of peak power and capacity. Though both power tests produce different values of anaerobic power and capacity, these mechanisms are still observed to have a strong relationship with one another (Haugen et al. , 2018, p. 681-682).

There is also a relationship between optimal anaerobic power and capacity which varies between external and internal effects relating to an individual’s internal mood in juxtaposition with specific times during the day that each power test is performed. The anaerobic power is a specific peak time within the performed test and the capacity is the measure of the applied energy of the entire duration of the test (Reilly & Down, 1992, p. 343-347). The experimental data presented illustrates a clear undeviating relationship between anaerobic power and capacity and validated research proves that there is in fact such a relationship that has been corroborated multiple times in professional experiments (Moritani et al. , 1981, p. 339). This finding can be applied to real world applications, such as testing for professional athletes to demonstrate anaerobic power in relation to the capacity to exert this power in order to examine various physical standings. This would be an efficient study to apply to endurance athletes to illustrate their peak power and the percentage of anaerobic systems that apply themselves during certain intervals.

A future experiment to test such mechanisms would be to have an individual run a short sprint on a treadmill while studying the peak power and capacity as well as which anaerobic systems, ATP/PC or glycolysis, begin to exert energy at specific time intervals. This will illustrate different physical statuses and will allow the researcher to further analyze the correlation between anaerobic power and capacity.