Can a 15m-overground wheelchair sprint be used to assess wheelchair-specific anaerobic work capacity?

Jan W van der Scheer; Sonja de Groot; Riemer J K Vegter; Dirkjan H E J Veeger; Lucas H V van der Woude

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.01.003

Can a 15m-overground wheelchair sprint be used to assess wheelchair-specific anaerobic work capacity?

Med Eng Phys. 2014 Apr;36(4):432-8. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.01.003. Epub 2014 Feb 14.

Authors

Jan W van der Scheer¹, Sonja de Groot², Riemer J K Vegter³, Dirkjan H E J Veeger⁴, Lucas H V van der Woude⁵

Affiliations

¹ University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.w.van.der.scheer@umcg.nl.
² University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center, Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands.
⁴ Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
⁵ University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, The Netherlands.

PMID: 24529650
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.01.003

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether outcomes based on stopwatch time and power output (PO) over a 15m-overground wheelchair sprint test can be used to assess wheelchair-specific anaerobic work capacity, by studying their relationship with outcomes on a Wingate-based 30s-wheelchair ergometer sprint (WAnT).

Methods: Able-bodied persons (N=19, 10 men, aged 18-26 y) performed a 15m overground sprint test in an instrumented wheelchair and a WAnT. 15m-outcomes were based on stopwatch time (time and mean velocity over 15m) and on PO (primary outcome: highest mean unilateral PO over successive 5s-intervals (P5-15m)). WAnT-outcomes were mean unilateral PO over 30s and the highest mean unilateral PO over successive 5s-intervals. Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) and coefficients of determination (R(2)) were calculated between 15m-sprint outcomes and WAnT-outcomes.

Results: Time over 15m (7.2s (± 1.0)) was weakly related to WAnT-outcomes (r=-0.61 and -0.60, R(2)=0.38 and 0.36, p<0.01), similar to mean velocity over 15m (2.1 m·s(-1) (± 0.3), R(2)=0.43 and 0.39, p<0.01). P5-15m (38.1W (± 14.0)) showed a moderate relationship to WAnT-outcomes (r=0.77 and 0.75, R(2)=0.59 and 0.56, p<0.001).

Conclusions: It seems that outcomes based on stopwatch time over a 15m-overground sprint cannot be used to assess wheelchair-specific anaerobic work capacity, in contrast to an outcome based on PO (P5-15m). The 15m-sprint with an instrumented wheel can be implemented in rehabilitation practice and research settings when WAnT equipment is not available, although care is needed when interpreting P5-15m as an outcome of anaerobic work capacity given that it seems more skill-dependent than the WAnT.

Keywords: Anaerobic power; Fitness; Spinal cord injury; Sprint power; Wheelchair propulsion; Wingate testing.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Adult
Exercise
Exercise Test*
Female
Humans
Male
Physical Exertion*
Regression Analysis
Time Factors
Wheelchairs*
Young Adult