The Development of Wingate Normative-Reference Values for a Healthy Canadian Adult Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The Wingate anaerobic test is a tool used to evaluate anaerobic power and capacity. While it is commonly utilized to assess performance, specifically among athletic populations, its evaluative capacity for non-athletic populations is limited by the lack of published data and normative-reference standards in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop Wingate normative-reference standards that are representative of the general young and healthy Canadian adult population.\nMethods. A convenience sample of 873 (396 males and 477 females) university students, ranging in age from 20 to 29 years, was examined. Data were collected in a Kinesiology laboratory-based course from 2010 to 2019. Participants completed a Wingate exercise protocol, which consisted of two 30-second bouts of pedalling that were separated by a 30-second rest period. During the testing bouts, participants pedalled against a resistance equivalent to 7.5% of their body mass in kilograms.\nResults. An overall trend of higher peak power (PP) and mean power (MP) values among male participants in comparison to female participants was observed, while females displayed lower fatigue index (FI) scores. Independent samples t-test results revealed statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between males and females for absolute PP and MP, but not for relative PP and MP, and FI.\nConclusions. The collected data allowed for normative-reference standards, including percentile rankings and seven performance classifications, to be generated. The development of these Wingate norms, specific to the target population, will allow for significant practical applications, including an effective method to assess anaerobic performance and health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".