The Metabolic Relevance of Type of Locomotion in Anaerobic Testing: Bosco Continuous Jumping Test Versus Wingate Anaerobic Test of the Same Duration

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the metabolic relevance of type of locomotion in anaerobic testing by analyzing and comparing the metabolic profile of the Bosco Continuous Jumping Test (CJ30) with the corresponding profile of the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT). Methods: A total of 11 well-trained, male team-sport athletes (age = 23.7 [2.2] y, height = 184.1 [2.8] cm, weight = 82.4 [6.4] kg) completed a CJ30 and WAnT each. During the WAnT, power data and revolutions per minute were recorded, and during the CJ30, jump height and jumping frequency were recorded. In addition, oxygen uptake and blood lactate concentration were assessed, and metabolic profiles were determined via the PCr-LA-O2 method. Results: In the CJ30, metabolic energy was lower (109.3 [18.0] vs 143.0 [13.1] kJ, P < .001, d = −2.302), while peak power (24.8 [4.4] vs 11.8 [0.5] W·kg−1, P < .001, d = 3.59) and mean power (20.8 [3.6] vs 9.1 [0.5] W·kg−1, P < .001, d = 4.14) were higher than in the WAnT. The metabolic profiles of the CJ30 (aerobic energy = 20.00% [4.7%], anaerobic alactic energy [WPCr] = 45.6% [4.5%], anaerobic lactic energy = 34.4% [5.2%]) and the WAnT (aerobic energy = 16.0% [3.0%], anaerobic alactic WPCr = 34.5% [5.0%], anaerobic lactic energy = 49.5% [3.3%]) are highly anaerobic. Absolute energy contribution for the CJ30 and WAnT was equal in WPCr (49.9 [11.1] vs 50.2 [11.2] kJ), but anaerobic lactic energy (37.7 [7.7] vs 69.9 [5.3] kJ) and aerobic energy (20.6 [5.7] vs 23.0 [4.0] kJ) were higher in the WAnT. Mechanical efficiency was substantially higher in the CJ30 (37.9% [4.5%] vs 15.6% [1.0%], P < .001, d = 6.86), while the fatigue index was lower (18.5% [3.8%] vs 23.2% [3.1%], P < .001, d = −1.38) than in the WAnT. Conclusions: Although the anaerobic share in both tests is similar and predominant, the CJ30 primarily taxes the WPCr system, while the WAnT more strongly relies on the glycolytic pathway. Thus, the 2 tests should not be used interchangeably, and the type of locomotion seems crucial when choosing an anaerobic test for a specific sport.