Frontiers in Psychology (Nov 2021)
Development and Validation of Prediction Formula of Wingate Test Peak Power From Force–Velocity Test in Male Soccer Players
Abstract
Peak power of the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT), either in W (Ppeak) or in W.kg–1 (rPpeak), has been widely used to evaluate the performance of soccer players; however, its relationship with force–velocity (F-v) test (e.g., whether these tests can be used interchangeably) has received little scientific attention so far. The aim of this work was to develop and validate a prediction equation of Ppeak and rPpeak from F-v characteristics in male soccer players. Participants were 158 adult male soccer players (sport experience 11.4 ± 4.5 years, mean ± standard deviation, approximately five weekly training units, age 22.6 ± 3.9 years, body mass 74.8 ± 7.8 kg, and height 178.3 ± 7.8 cm) who performed both WAnT and F-v test. An experimental (EXP, n = 79) and a control group (CON, n = 79) were used for development and validation, respectively, of the prediction equation of Ppeak and rPpeak from F-v test. In EXP, Ppeak correlated very largely with body mass (r = 0.787), fat-free mass (r = 0.765), largely with maximal power of F-v test (Pmax; r = 0.639), body mass index (r = 0.603), height (r = 0.558), moderately with theoretical maximal force (F0; r = 0.481), percentage of body fat (r = 0.471), fat mass (r = 0.443, p < 0.001); rPpeak correlated with rPmax (largely; r = 0.596, p < 0.001), theoretical maximal velocity (v0; moderately; r = 0.341, p = 0.002), F0 (small magnitude; r = 0.280, p = 0.012), BF (r = −0.230, p = 0.042), and fat mass (r = −0.242, p = 0.032). Ppeak in EXP could be predicted using the formula “44.251 + 7.431 × body mass (kg) + 0.576 × Pmax (W) – 19.512 × F0” (R = 0.912, R2 = 0.833, standard error of estimate (SEE) = 42.616), and rPpeak from “3.148 + 0.218 × rPmax (W.kg–1) + v0 (rpm)” (R = 0.765, R2 = 0.585, SEE = 0.514). Applying these formulas in CON, no bias was observed between the actual and the predicted Ppeak (mean difference 2.5 ± 49.8 W; 95% CI, −8.7, 13.6; p = 0.661) and rPpeak (mean difference 0.05 ± 0.71 W.kg–1; 95% CI, −0.11, 0.21, p = 0.525). These findings provided indirect estimates of Ppeak of the WAnT, especially useful in periods when this test should not be applied considering the fatigue it causes; in this context, the F-v test can be considered as an alternative of exercise testing for estimating the average Ppeak of a group of soccer players rather than for predicting individual scores when the interindividual variation of performance is small.
Keywords
