See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277019344

Wingate Anaerobic Test Percentile Norms in

Colombian Healthy Adults
ARTICLE in THE JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH MAY 2015
Impact Factor: 2.08 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001054

READS

188

6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Robinson Ramrez-Vlez

Mikel Izquierdo

Universidad del Rosario

Universidad Pblica de Navarra

233 PUBLICATIONS 368 CITATIONS

251 PUBLICATIONS 5,526 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mikel Izquierdo

Retrieved on: 15 March 2016

WINGATE ANAEROBIC TEST PERCENTILE NORMS

COLOMBIAN HEALTHY ADULTS

IN

ROBINSON RAMIREZ-VELEZ,1 CARLOS A. LOPEZ-ALBAN,2 DIEGO R. LA ROTTA-VILLAMIZAR,1

JESUS A. ROMERO-GARCIA,1 ALICIA M. ALONSO-MARTINEZ,3 AND MIKEL IZQUIERDO1,3
1

GICAEDS Group, Faculty of Physical Culture, Sport and Recreation, University of Santo Tomas, Bogota, D.C, Colombia;
Center for Research in Health and Human Performance Health and Fitness ZOE Quality of life, Cali, Colombia; and 3Public
University of Navarre, Department of Health Sciences, Spain

ABSTRACT
Ramrez-Velez, R, Lopez-Alban, CA, La Rotta-Villamizar, DR,
Romero-Garca, JA, Alonso-Martinez, AM, and Izquierdo, M.
Wingate Anaerobic Test percentile norms in Colombian
healthy adults. J Strength Cond Res 30(1): 217225, 2016
The Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) became one of the
most convenient tests used to evaluate anaerobic capacity
and the effectiveness of anaerobic training programs for a variety of power sports. However, its use and interpretation as an
evaluative measurement are limited because there are few published reference values derived from large numbers of subjects
in nonathletic populations. We present reference values for the
WAnT in Colombian healthy adults (aged 2080 years old).
The sample comprised 1,873 subjects (64% men) from Cali,
Colombia, who were recruited for the study between 2002 and
2012. The 30-second WAnT was performed on a Monark
ergometer. The WAnT resistance was set at 0.075 kp$kg21
body mass (BM). The mean absolute peak power (PP), relative
PP normalized to the BM, and the fatigue index (FI%) were
calculated using the LMS method (L [curve Box-Cox], M [curve
median], and S [curve coefficient of variation]) and expressed
as tabulated percentiles from 3 to 97 and as smoothed centile
curves (P3, P10, P25, P50, P75, P90, P97). Mean 6 SD values for
the patients anthropometric data were 38.1 6 11.7 years of
age, 72.7 6 14.2 kg weight, 1.68 6 0.09 m height, and 25.6 6
4.2 body mass index. Our results show that mean absolute PP
value, relative PP relative values normalized to BM, and FI were
527.4 6 131.7 W, 7.6 6 2.3 W$kg21, and 29.0 6 15.7%,
respectively. Men performed better than women in terms of PP
and FI values. Nevertheless, the mean PP decreased with age
and sex. Age-specific PP and FI normative values among
healthy Colombian adults are defined. A more specific set of

Address correspondence to Mikel Izquierdo, mikel.izquierdo@gmail.com.

30(1)/217225
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

reference values is useful for clinicians and researchers studying anaerobic capacity in healthy adults.

KEY WORDS adults, anaerobic test, reference values,

muscular power, physical fitness
INTRODUCTION

naerobic power refers to the ability to perform

high-intensity exercise for a fraction of a second
to several minutes. The ability to develop maximal anaerobic capacity is critical for success in
power sports. Typically, testing maximal effort in cycling,
running, and jumping is used to assess this energy system
(12). Efforts lasting up to 10 seconds are generally reported
as anaerobic power, whereas efforts lasting longer than 10
seconds are generally termed as anaerobic capacity (14).
Anaerobic tests vary in style and sophistication. This is
partly why it has been difficult to establish normative
standards for athletic populations (2,5,27). Many athletic
teams lack an exercise physiology laboratory, which limits
their use of more accurate assessment devices and requires
greater reliance on field measurements.
Ayalon et al. (2) first presented the Wingate Anaerobic
Test (WAnT) as a method of measuring maximal anaerobic power (peak and mean) and anaerobic fatigue. The
WAnT is a 30-second supramaximal exercise test in which
an individual pedals as fast as possible on a cycle ergometer against a resistance determined as a percentage of
body mass (BM) (e.g., 0.075 kp$kg21). Flywheel load, initially recommended at 0.075 kp$kg21 body weight, has
since been revised by the original author to 0.085 kp$kg21
body weight to reflect more maximal peak power (PP)
output (2). Bar-Or and Dotan (5) recommended a force
of 90 g$kg21 for adult nonathletes and 100 g$kg21 for
adult athletes. Various studies (3,7,11,19,20,31) indicate
the relations between the lean body mass (LBM) and
power outputs of the anaerobic performance. The WAnT
measures 3 indices (1): PP (the greatest 5 seconds of
mechanical power generated), relative PP (values normalized to BM), and the fatigue index (FI%, the rate of decline
during the test). The test is considered safe, easy to
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2016 |

217

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Reference Values for Wingate

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the study sample by sex.*

Characteristics

All (n = 1,843)

Age (years)
Body mass (kg)
Height (m)
Body mass index (kg$m21)
Resistance load (kg)
Peak power (W)
Peak power (W$kg21)
Fatigue index (%)

38.1
72.7
1.68
25.6
5.0
527.4
7.6
29.0

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Men (n = 1,177)

11.7
14.2
0.09
4.2
2.0
131.7
2.3
15.7

37.4
77.4
1.72
26.0
5.5
566.7
7.7
29.5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

11.7
12.8
0.07
3.8
1.5
123.8
2.4
15.8

Women (n = 667)

p for sex

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

0.006
,0.001
,0.001
,0.001
,0.001
,0.001
0.532
0.274

39.3
64.5
1.61
24.9
4.4
462.0
7.6
28.1

11.7
12.8
0.07
4.6
2.5
117.9
2.2
15.7

*Data are shown as mean 6 SD.

administer, reliable, and valid and uses equipment that is

common in most laboratories (5,27).
Although the WAnT is not specific to running-based
sports, it has been used to assess the levels of anaerobic
fitness and the effectiveness of anaerobic training programs for a variety of power sports, including American
football (15), basketball (6), tennis (16), and track and field
(21). However, its use and interpretation as an evaluative
measurement are limited because there are few published
reference values (3,7,11,19,20,31) derived from large numbers of subjects in nonathletic populations.

Because there is a strong relationship between anaerobic power and functional status, it would be valuable to
develop normative values in nonathletic populations.
Despite the lack of a universal cutoff point for the WAnT,
the utility of biological performance as an auxiliary procedure to assess anaerobic fitness in practice is evident
(2,12,14). This is because the poor anaerobic capacity has
also been shown to be related to the current cardiometabolic health in youth and adults and the risk of future
morbidity and mortality (13,17,23,24). Given the popularity and versatility of the WAnT, it is surprising that there is

TABLE 2. Tabulated of peak power (in watts) centile values for age and sex.*

Men (n = 1,177)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.61
Women (n = 667)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.61

SD

P3

P10

P25

P50

P75

P90

P97

193
168
240
121
161
119
85
44
46

651.6
628.4
576.9
556.5
533.4
534.1
502.9
487.2
453.3

97.4
106.1
124.1
127.2
111.7
100.8
110.5
104.9
131.1

441.7
416.4
345.0
277.8
304.3
294.9
293.6
280.0
282.0

523.4
489.0
416.0
390.4
363.0
419.0
357.2
333.2
303.2

593.0
562.3
491.3
467.0
471.5
460.5
431.0
431.0
348.0

666.0
639.5
585.5
580.0
543.0
531.0
493.0
486.0
407.0

721.0
700.3
677.0
635.0
608.5
620.0
560.0
578.0
555.0

767.0
754.9
736.0
707.8
668.0
669.5
644.4
648.0
676.4

822.7
817.3
782.1
814.0
729.4
704.5
768.8
649.0
701.0

89
68
115
100
98
68
70
30
29

509.3
497.7
482.7
430.7
457.4
445.4
384.0
368.3
279.7

114.7
94.6
115.1
110.7
115.1
123.8
109.5
64.3
68.2

250.1
330.5
270.0
238.9
244.3
259.4
189.0
260.0
220.0

360.7
364.1
336.0
280.6
281.8
297.0
203.5
260.0
220.0

442.0
408.3
404.0
351.5
374.5
344.0
328.0
303.5
220.0

512.0
519.0
487.0
417.0
469.5
434.0
381.5
404.0
265.0

587.0
558.5
549.0
509.5
542.0
509.0
451.0
412.0
354.0

671.2
619.9
598.0
587.0
607.7
633.0
534.7
412.0
354.0

711.4
692.9
753.6
661.1
637.6
799.0
613.8
412.0
354.0

*M, mean; SD, standard deviation; P, percentile.

218

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Tabulated of peak power (in watts per kilogram) centile values for age and sex.*

Men (n = 1,177)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.60
Women (n = 667)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.60

SD

P3

P10

P25

P50

P75

P90

P97

193
168
240
121
161
119
85
44
46

9.4
8.7
7.7
7.1
6.9
7.0
6.6
6.3
6.4

2.2
2.0
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.3
1.9

5.0
5.1
4.1
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.9
3.5

6.2
5.9
4.7
4.6
3.9
4.7
4.1
4.0
4.4

8.4
7.3
6.1
6.1
5.5
5.7
5.5
5.6
4.7

9.4
8.7
7.7
7.1
7.0
7.1
6.4
6.7
6.5

11.1
10.1
9.2
8.3
8.5
7.9
7.8
7.3
7.6

12.2
11.3
10.8
9.1
9.3
9.2
8.5
7.9
9.7

13.4
12.9
11.8
10.4
9.8
10.9
11.4
8.1
10.3

89
68
115
100
98
68
70
30
29

9.0
8.5
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.0
5.9
6.3
5.0

2.5
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.3
1.8
1.0
2.0

4.4
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.1
3.3
2.9
4.9
2.8

5.5
5.8
4.8
4.4
4.3
4.5
3.4
4.9
2.8

7.5
6.4
6.5
5.7
5.6
5.2
4.4
5.1
2.8

8.8
8.7
7.9
6.9
7.5
6.9
6.1
6.9
5.3

10.7
10.4
9.2
8.9
9.1
8.4
7.4
7.0
6.8

12.4
11.6
10.6
9.8
10.9
11.1
8.5
7.0
6.8

13.7
13.2
13.3
11.9
13.3
12.4
9.4
7.0
6.8

*M, mean; SD, standard deviation; P, percentile.

a paucity of reference values for the test (2,12,14). Only 4

studies attempted to develop normative data tables for the
WAnT (3,7,19,20), and recently, 2 studies (11,31) estab-

lished classification tables for college athletes undertaking

a large number of WAnTs. Nonetheless, there is a paucity
of data in Latin American populations, and reference

TABLE 4. Tabulated of fatigue index (in percent) centile values for age and sex.*

Men (n = 1,177)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.60
Women (n = 667)
2025
2630
3135
3640
4145
4650
5155
5660
.60

SD

P97

P90

P75

P50

P25

P10

P3

193
168
240
121
161
119
85
44
46

31.1
11.4
12.3
17.4
23.0
29.0
36.5
48.2
58.0

28.9
11.8
7.5
14.4
19.0
28.0
38.0
45.0
51.4

28.1
11.7
8.6
13.5
19.0
26.0
36.0
43.0
54.9

37.1
27.6
10.3
14.0
17.0
29.0
43.5
77.0
78.0

28.6
12.4
6.3
12.2
17.0
28.0
36.3
45.8
55.4

25.5
12.2
5.4
8.8
17.0
23.0
35.0
42.2
48.8

26.9
13.2
6.0
10.0
17.8
24.5
37.0
43.7
55.1

30.2
10.9
13.0
14.2
23.0
30.0
35.0
47.2
58.0

31.1
11.4
12.3
17.4
23.0
29.0
36.5
48.2
58.0

89
68
115
100
98
68
70
30
29

24.5
11.5
7.1
11.0
15.0
23.0
33.3
41.5
51.8

27.7
9.5
10.0
13.8
21.0
26.0
34.0
42.0
49.0

30.0
10.9
7.0
14.0
23.0
31.0
38.5
42.0
55.0

35.4
27.4
9.5
15.0
17.5
26.0
39.5
76.0
77.0

24.2
9.3
7.1
9.0
17.5
26.0
32.0
35.2
41.3

25.0
10.4
11.0
11.6
16.0
24.0
31.5
41.2
49.0

24.3
10.8
9.0
9.6
15.5
24.0
31.5
40.2
49.0

26.3
15.6
13.0
13.0
14.0
22.0
42.8
48.0
48.0

24.5
11.5
7.1
11.0
15.0
23.0
33.3
41.5
51.8

*M, mean; SD, standard deviation; P, percentile.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2016 |

219

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Reference Values for Wingate

(range, 435624 W) with
a group SD of approximately
100 W. The significance level
was set to 0.05, and the
required power was set to at
least 0.80. The sample size
was estimated at 25 to 50 participants per group. The
recruitment period lasted from
June 2002 to August 2012.
Subjects

All individuals came from

Medicine Prevent Service of
Medical Center ZOE Health
and Fitness. An annual history
questionnaire was completed to
identify subjects with chronic
medical conditions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a)
no movement restriction in the
lower extremities and (2) no
self-reported history of inflammatory joint disease, neurological disorder, or lower extremity
injury. Subjects with a medical
or clinical diagnosis of a major
systemic disease (including
malignant conditions such as
cancer), with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, with high blood
pressure, with hypothyroidism/
hyperthyroidism, with a history
of drug or alcohol abuse, who
were regularly using multivitaFigure 1. Smoothed LMS curves for the 3th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentiles of the peak
power (W) in men (A) and women (B).
min preparations, with a body
mass index (BMI) $ 35 kg$m21,
or with an infectious condition
values for the WAnT for the Colombian population obwere also excluded from the study. Additionally, individuals
tained following a standardized protocol such as that used
who had exercising at least 3 days a week for 20 minutes or
by Ayalon et al. (2) are lacking.
more or having an estimated total energy expenditure exceedTherefore, the purpose of this study was to develop
ing 36 kcal$kg21$d21 (men) or 34 kcal$kg21$d21 (women) for
reference values for the WAnT for anaerobic power (PP
the previous 3 months, as detailed in a 7-day activity log, were
and FI) in 1,873 healthy Colombian adults (aged 2080
excluded from participating. Written informed consent was
years). We also aimed to evaluate sex- and age-related differobtained for all subjects, and ethical approval was granted by
ences among the population.
the Medical Ethics Committee of the ZOE. Additionally, each
participant completed an informed consent document outlining
METHODS
the experiment that was approved by the institutional review
board. The study conforms to the principles outlined in the
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Declaration of Helsinki.
A total of 1,873 nonathletic adults (64% men) between the
ages of 20 and 80 years participated in this study (Table 1). A
Procedures
convenience sample of volunteers was included in groups by
Anthropometrics variables were measured by a level
sex and age with 10-year increments (a total of 8 groups).
2 anthropometrist certified by the International Society
Power calculations were based on the mean of the WAnT of
for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK), in
the first 150 participants in the ongoing data collection

220

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

adjusted so that no more than

5 degrees of knee flexion was
present when the leg was fully
extended. Each subject was
then given. The resistance load
was set at 7.50% of the subjects
body weight, within a 0.1-kg
resolution of resistance range.
Computer software (Monark
Anaerobic Test Software version 2.2) calculated the PP (in
watts and watts per kilogram)
and IF (in percent) throughout
the 30-second test. After the
completion of the WAnT, participants cycled at a low aerobic workload (25100 W) for
25 minutes as an active recovery phase. When resistance
was applied at the end of the
countdown, the subject pedaled as fast as possible while
seated for the full 30 seconds
of the WAnT; meanwhile, the
technician again provided verbal encouragement to work at
maximal effort. All fit measurements in a subsample (n =
50, 60% men, 73.1 6 2.7 kg,
BMI = 25.4 6 0.6 kg$m21,
age range = 2050 years old)
were recorded to ensure
reproducibility on day 2 of
the study. The reproducibility
Figure 2. Smoothed LMS curves for the 3th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 97th percentiles of the peak
of our data reached R = 0.88.
21
power (W$kg ) in men (A) and women (B).
Intrarater reliability was assessed by determining the
interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement between repetitions was observed
accordance with the ISAK guidelines (18), in the morning
in each assessment (ICC = 0.862, 95% confidence interval:
after an overnight fast, at the same time (9 AM). The first visit
0.7430.945).
includes body weight measurement to the nearest 0.05 kg
using a calibrated scale (Tanita BWB-800A; Tanita, Corp., ToStatistical Analyses
kyo, Japan). Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess normality
a stadiometer (Seca 220; Seca, Ltd, Hamburg, Germany), and
for all variables. Anthropometric data and PP (in watts and
BMI values were calculated. Two assessors were trained in the
watts per kilogram) and FI (in percent) values are reported
use of the ergometer and the implementation of the protocol,
as mean 6 standard deviation (SD). We analyzed sex-group
which they practiced before the assessments. Subsequently,
differences in the anthropometric and WAnT variables by
the participants were then fitted for their optimal seat height
one-way analysis of variance. To provide percentile values
on a Monark 874E (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden)
for the sample, we analyzed PP (in watts and watts per kiloweight ergometer. One 30-second Wingate test (control) was
gram) and FI (in percent) outcome data by maximum penaladministered, followed by 25 minutes of an active recovery
ized likelihood using the LMS statistical method for men
phase on the cycle ergometer.
and women separately (10). We derived smoothed centile
The second visit began with a 35 minutes of warm-up
charts using the LMS method. This estimates the measureperiod on a cycle ergometer, striving to achieve a warm-up
ment percentiles in terms of 3 age-specific cubic spline
heart rate of 130140 beats per minutes. The seat height was
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2016 |

221

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Reference Values for Wingate

curves: the LMS method (L
[curve Box-Cox], M [curve
median], and S [curve coefficient of variation]). The appropriate number of degrees of
freedom was selected on the
basis of the deviance, Q-tests,
and worm plots, following the
suggestions of Royston and
Wright (26). The 3rd, 10th,
25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and
97th smoothing percentiles
were chosen as age- and
gender-specific reference values. For the construction of
the percentile curves, data
were imported into the
LmsChartMaker
software
(V. 2.3; by Tim Cole and Huiqi
Pan), and the L, M, and S curves
were estimated (9). Except for
the LMS method calculations,
we used SPSS V. 21 software
for Windows (SPSS, Chicago,
IL, USA), and the significance
level was set at 5%.

RESULTS

Figure 3. Smoothed LMS curves for the 97th, 90th, 75th, 50th, 25th, 10th and 3th, percentiles of the Fatigue
Index (%) in men (A) and women (B).

Anthropometric characteristics
and WAnT outcomes of the
study sample by sex are shown
in Table 1. The mean values
were 38.1 6 11.7 years of age,
72.7 6 14.2 kg weight, 1.68 6
0.09 m height, and 25.6 6
4.2 kg$m21 BMI. The mean
absolute PP value, relative PP

TABLE 5. Reference values for resistance setting, PP, PP, and FI from cited studies.*
Study

Resistance setting (kp$kg21)

This study (women)

This study (men)
Barker et al. (3) (women)
Bradley and Ball (7) (women)
Maud and Shultz (19) (women)
Maud and Shultz (19) (men)
Zupan et al. (31) (men)
Zupan et al. (31) (women)
Coppin et al. (11) (men)

0.075
0.075
0.085
0.085
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.085

PP (W)
462.0
566.7
672.7
608.0
454.5
699.5
951.0
598.0
1,084.2

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

117.9
123.8
90.9
90.5
81.3
94.7
141.0
88.0
137.0

PP (W$kg21)
7.6
7.7
10.8
10.1
7.6
9.1
11.6
9.5
9.3

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

2.2
2.4
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.9

FI (%)
28.1
29.5
53.2
45.8
35.0
37.6
47.0
42.0
49.1

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

15.7
15.8
6.4
6.2
8.3
9.8
7.6
7.8
8.4

*Data are shown as mean 6 SD.

PP = peak power; FI = fatigue index.

222

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

value normalized to BM, and FI were 527.4 6 131.7 W, 7.6 6
2.3 W$kg21, and 29.0 6 15.7%, respectively. Men performed
better than women in terms of PP (in watts and watts per
kilogram) and FI (in percent) values. Overall, all variables
were significantly higher in men.
Tables 2 and 3 show the normative values for PP (in watts
and in watts per kilogram) in the healthy adults, classified
according to sex and age and expressed in percentiles from 3
to 97. Men performed better than women in terms of PP (in
watts and in watts per kilogram) values. Nevertheless, the
mean absolute PP values and relative PP values normalized
to BM decreased with age and sex, as shown in Tables 2 and
3. The FI (in percent) 50th percentile (20 and .61 years)
ranged from 5.4 to 48.8% in men and from 10.4 to 49.0% in
women (Table 4).
Figures 13 show smoothed centile curves (P3, P10, P25,
P50, P75, P90, and P97) for PP (in watts and in watts per kilogram) and FI (in percent) according to sex and age categories. The figures show that PP is higher and generally more
homogenous in men than in women.
Finally, comparisons of the mean values for the resistance
setting (in kiloponds per kilogram), PP (in watts and watts
per kilogram), and FI (in percent) from this study are
presented in Table 5.

DISCUSSION
The main objective of this study was to establish age and sex
reference values for the WAnT among healthy Colombian
adults and to compare values across the age range sampled.
Our findings in this population confirm the common finding
of higher PP in adult men compared with adult women
subjects reported internationally (3,7,19,20,31). Increased
height and BM in men (particularly LBM) both strongly
correlate with WAnT and are therefore the principle explanations for these differences. Furthermore, recreational physical activity levels or regular physical training are also
positively associated with WAnT and are generally lower
in women (7,19,31).
Among the substantial normative WAnT publications
(3,7,11,19,20,31), few summarize data obtained with instrumentation, procedures, or measures recommended by standardized protocol such as that used by Ayalon et al. (2) or
Bar-Or and Dotan (5). Standardization is important to allow
valid comparisons within or between countries for the
assessment of longitudinal or secular trends and to be able
to reliably detect poor strength in the clinical setting and
identify individuals who may gain particular benefit from
interventions. These studies tend to use age bands of 5 and
10 years or older, making it difficult to identify the age at
which anaerobic test is attained or when the most significant
or largest declines in anaerobic performance occur.
Several previous reports have suggested that PP (in watts
and watts per kilogram) values are higher in early adulthood
and progressively decline after the third and fourth decades
of life (3,7,19,20,31). Normative data for physical fitness are

| www.nsca.com

usually presented in a notable format or as centile curves as

a function of age (8,22,30). However, this is the first study to
show age and sex reference values for WAnT among Latin
American adults. To evaluate age-related changes across
young adulthood and to establish age-related reference values in adults more precisely, we assessed and compared
WAnT between relatively narrow age bands. We observed
that the increase of FI in older adults ages until 3640 years,
especially in the 97th percentile, with a subsequent decrease,
as observed in Figures 3A, B, but not those of the intermediate age category (x to Y). These findings appear to suggest
the attainment of peak FI in the middle of the third and
fourth decades of life and evidence of strength decline in
the current population at an earlier age than reported in
a number of previous cross-sectional studies (20,31). This
finding needs however to be interpreted with caution
because this study is not longitudinal and as such may also
reflect secular changes in anaerobic performance, which
have been reported internationally (3,7,11,19).
In women, the PP (462.0 6 117.9 W) values were similar
to those of the subjects from the study of Maud and Shultz
(19,20) (454.5 6 81.3 W) and lower than those of the North
American groups in the study by Zupan et al. (31) (598.0 6
88.0 W), Baker et al. (3) (672.7 6 0.9 W), and Bradley and
Ball (7) (608.0 6 90.5 W). Similarly, in men, the PP (566.7 6
123.8 W) values were lower compared with North American
men (11,19,20) who had PP mean 6 SD values of (699.5 6
94.7 W), (951.0 6 141.0 W), and (1,084.2 6 137.0 W),
respectively.
Across the age categories sampled in this study, the
highest values were lower than 2 relatively recent studies
of PP in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division IA
male athletes aged 1825 years (19) and 1830 years (31)
and were substantially lower than those reported for
American football players aged 1822 years (11). In contrast,
the mean values among women in this study were similar to
those reported by Maud and Shultz (19,20) and slightly
lower than those reported by Zupan et al. (31) and Bradley
and Ball (7). The greater mean absolute PP values and relative PP values normalized to BM in the WAnT could be
explained by sex differences, including BM, the level of training and the resistance setting. The force initially recommended by the Wingate group was 0.075 kp$kg21 BM, which is
traditionally most often used (2,14). Bar-Or and Dotan (5)
later revised the recommended resistance to 0.085 kp$kg21
BM. A number of investigators since 1987 have reported that
PP tends to increase as the resistance setting increases,
whereas less differences are observed in the mean power
and FI (3,25,28). Although some controversy exists regarding optimization of the load setting for the WAnT, the 0.085
kp$kg21 and 0.075 kp$kg21 BM values, as revised by Bar-Or
and Dotan, may still be the most relevant, particularly for
athletes and nonathletes, respectively (5).
The greater FI values represent greater fatigue in participants in this study. The greater declines in power are partly
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2016 |

223

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Reference Values for Wingate

explained by the higher PP values; there was a higher power
from which to decline in this study. The mean absolute PP
values (in watts), relative PP values to BM (in watts per
kilogram), and FI (in percent) determined by Baker et al. (3),
Bradley and Ball (7), Maud and Shultz (19,20), Zupan et al.
(31) Coppin et al. (11), and this study are presented in Table
5. There are multiple reasons for these differences. First,
although international comparisons of the WAnT using similar methodology are lacking, varying values for PP (mean
absolute or relative to BM) and FI (in percent) in different
regions and ethnicities are evident (3,7,11,19,20,31). These
may be accounted for by differences in anthropometric
parameters such as height, weight, and body composition,
which vary between populations and ethnicities and
are important determinants of anaerobic performance
(3,7,11,19,20,25,28,31). Second, the resistance used (0.075
kp$kg21 or 0.085 kp$kg21) was later shown to be too low
to produce optimal PP and FI measurements (11). Finally,
Maud and Shultz (19,20), similarly to earlier WAnT researchers, likely used a different method to determine PP;
this may have contributed to lower values.
The findings in this study must be interpreted with
caution because this study is not longitudinal and therefore
may also reflect secular changes in anaerobic capacity, as has
been reported internationally (1,4,29). The second limitation
of existing research was not measured another components
of fitness, such as endurance capacity, muscle endurance,
and balance, for which standardized testing procedures are
not readily available. Third limitation is concerned with relationship and anaerobic performance with body composition
(e.g., anaerobic capacity relative per kilogram of BM or by
LBM) or socioeconomic status or ethnicity, which could
affect the anaerobic performance. On this basis, the 3rd to
25th percentile curves obtained in this study could be used as
a cutoff point, below which the level of PP can be considered
inadequate. The correct interpretation of WAnT data requires comparing the score obtained in a particular person
with normative values for the general population of the same
sex and age. Therefore, additional work is needed to more
fully characterize WAnT within the Colombian population
and to identify population-specific cut points for healthy/
adequate anaerobic performance and for other components of fitness, ideally combined with evaluation of markers
or nutritional or cardiometabolic health or is vital to success
in many sports. However, such limitations do not compromise the results obtained when validating them. Few studies
examining these associations have included people from
Latin American populations.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The development of anaerobic capacity is vital to success in
many sports. The WAnT is the most popular anaerobic
fitness test, and the reference values developed in this project
using nonathletes may be more applicable than previously
reported reference values (3,7,11,19,20,25,28,31). The norms

224

the

can be used in lieu of the more limited data that was previously made available from individual studies conducted in
smaller samples.

REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, N, Welsman, JR, Williams, CA, and Kirby, BJ.
Longitudinal changes in young peoples short-term power output.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 11401145, 2000.
2. Ayalon, A, Inbar, O, and Bar-Or, O. Relationships among
measurements of explosive strength and anaerobic power. In:
International Series on Sport Sciences. 1: Biomechanics IV. R.C. Nelson
and C.A. Morehouse, eds. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press,
1974. 527532.
3. Baker, UC, Heath, EM, Smith, DR, and Oden, GL. Development of
Wingate Anaerobic Test norms for highly-trained females. J Exerc
Physiol Online 14: 6879, 2011.
4. Bareket, F and Bar-Or, O. Longitudinal changes in beak aerobic and
anaerobic mechanical power of circumpubertal boys. Ped Exer Sci 5:
318331, 1993.
5. Bar-Or, O and Dotan, R. Load optimization for the Wingate
Anaerobic Test. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 51: 409417, 1983.
6. Bogdanis, GC, Ziagos, V, Anastasiadis, M, and Maridaki, M. Effects
of two different short-term training programs on the physical and
technical abilities of adolescent basketball players. J Sci Med Sport
10: 7988, 2007.
7. Bradley, AL and Ball, TE. The Wingate test: Effect of load on power
outputs of female athletes and nonathletes. J Appl Sports Sci Res 6:
193199, 1992.
8. Chen, HT, Lin, CH, and Yu, LH. Normative physical fitness scores
for community-dwelling older adults. J Nurs Res 17: 3041, 2009.
9. Cole, TJ, Freeman, JV, and Preece, MA. British. 1990 growth
reference centiles for weight, height, body mass index and head
circumference fitted by maximum penalized likelihood. Stat Med 17:
407429, 1998.
10. Cole, TJ and Green, PJ. Smoothing reference centile curves: The LMS
method and penalized likelihood. Stat Med 11: 13051319, 1992.
11. Coppin, E, Heath, EM, Bressel, E, and Wagner, DR. Wingate
anaerobic test reference values for male power athletes. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 7: 232236, 2012.
12. Driss, T and Vandewalle, H. The measurement of maximal
(anaerobic) power output on a cycle ergometer: A critical review.
Biomed Res Int 2013: 589361, 2013.
13. Ekelund, U, Anderssen, SA, Froberg, K, Sardinha, LB, Andersen, LB,
and Brage, S. Independent associations of physical activity and
cardiorespiratory fitness with metabolic risk factors in children: The
European Youth Heart Study. Diabetologia 50: 18321840, 2007.
14. Green, S. Measurement of anaerobic work capacities in humans.
Sports Med 19: 3242, 1995.
15. Hoffman, JR, Im, J, Kang, J, Ratamess, NA, Nioka, S, Rundell, KW,
Kime, R, Cooper, J, and Chance, B. The effect of a competitive
collegiate football season on power performance and muscle oxygen
recovery kinetics. J Strength Cond Res 19: 509513, 2005.
16. Kovacs, MS, Pritchett, R, Wickwire, PJ, Green, JM, and Bishop, P.
Physical performance changes after unsupervised training during the
autumn/spring semester break in competitive tennis players. Br J
Sports Med 41: 705710, 2007.
17. Macfarlane, DJ and Tomkinson, GR. Evolution and variability in
fitness test performance of Asian children and adolescents. Med Sport
Sci 50: 143167, 2007.
18. Marfell-Jones, M, Olds, T, and Stewart, A. International Standards for
Anthropometric Assessment. Potchefstroom, South Africa: ISAK, 2006.
19. Maud, PJ and Shultz, BB. Norms for the Wingate Anaerobic Test with
comparison to another similar test. Res Q Exerc Sport 60: 144151, 1989.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

20. Maud, PJ and Shultz, BB. Relationships between and normative data
for three performance measures of anaerobic power. In: Kinanthropy
III: Proceedings of the VIII Commonwealth and International Conference
on Sport, Physical Education, Recreation, and Health. T Riley, J
Watkins, and J Borms, eds. London: E. & F.N. Spon: 284289, 1986.
21. Meckel, Y, Atterbom, H, Grodjinovsky, A, Ben-Sira, D, and
Rotstein, A. Physiological characteristics of female 100 metre
sprinters of different performance levels. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35:
169175, 1995.
22. Nes, BM, Janszky, I, Aspenes, ST, Bertheussen, GF, Vatten, LJ, and
Wisloff, U. Exercise patterns and peak oxygen uptake in a healthy
population: The HUNT Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 18811889,
2012.
23. Ortega, FB, Labayen, I, Ruiz, JR, Kurvinen, E, Loit, HM, Harro, J,
Veidebaum, T, and Sjostrom, M. Improvements in fitness reduce the
risk of becoming overweight across puberty. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:
18911897, 2011.
24. Ortega, FB, Ruiz, JR, Castillo, MJ, and Sjostrom, M. Physical fitness
in childhood and adolescence: A powerful marker of health. Int J
Obes (Lond) 32: 111, 2008.

| www.nsca.com

25. Patton, JF, Murphy, MM, and Frederick, FA. Maximal power
outputs during the Wingate anaerobic test. Int J Sports Med 6: 8285,
1985.
26. Royston, P and Wright, EM. Goodness-of-fit statistics for agespecific reference intervals. Stat Med 19: 29432962, 2000.
27. Skinner, JS and OConnor, J. Wingate test: Cross-sectional and
longitudinal analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19: S73, 1973.
28. Stickley, CD, Hetzler, RK, and Kimura, IF. Wingate test: Cross-sectional
and longitudinal analysis. J Strength Cond Res 22: 958965, 2008.
29. Tomkinson, GR. Global changes in anaerobic fitness test
performance of children and adolescents (1958-2003). Scand J Med
Sci Sports 17: 497507, 2007.
30. Tveter, AT, Dagfinrud, H, Moseng, T, and Holm, I. Health-related
physical fitness measures: Reference values and reference equations for
use in clinical practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95: 13661373, 2014.
31. Zupan, MF, Arara, AW, Dawson, LH, Wile, AL, Payn, TL, and
Hannon, ME. Wingate Anaerobic Test peak power and anaerobic
capacity classifications for men and women intercollegiate athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 25982604, 2009.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2016 |

225

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.