Neuromechanical Differences between Pronated and Supinated Forearm Positions during Upper-Body Wingate Tests.

Arm-cycling is a versatile exercise modality with applications in both athletic enhancement and rehabilitation, yet the influence of forearm orientation remains understudied. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of forearm position on upper-body arm-cycling Wingate tests. Fourteen adult males (27.3 ± 5.8 years) underwent bilateral assessments of handgrip strength in standing and seated positions, followed by pronated and supinated forward arm-cycling Wingate tests. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from five upper-extremity muscles, including anterior deltoid, triceps brachii lateral head, biceps brachii, latissimus dorsi, and brachioradialis. Simultaneously, bilateral normal and propulsion forces were measured at the pedal-crank interface. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE), power output, and fatigue index were recorded post-test. The results showed that a pronated forearm position provided significantly (p < 0.05) higher normal and propulsion forces and triceps brachii muscle activation patterns during arm-cycling. No significant difference in RPE was observed between forearm positions (p = 0.17). A positive correlation was found between seated handgrip strength and peak power output during the Wingate test while pronated (dominant: p = 0.01, r = 0.55; non-dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.49) and supinated (dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.51; don-dominant: p = 0.04, r = 0.47). Fatigue changed the force and EMG profile during the Wingate test. In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of forearm position's impact on upper-body Wingate tests. These findings have implications for optimizing training and performance strategies in individuals using arm-cycling for athletic enhancement and rehabilitation.

The Effects of Load, Crank Position, and Sex on the Biomechanics and Performance during an Upper Body Wingate Anaerobic Test.

INTRODUCTION: The upper body Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) is a 30-s maximal effort sprint against a set load (percentage of body mass). However, there is no consensus on the optimal load and no differential values for males and females, even when there are well-studied anatomical and physiological differences in muscle mass for the upper body. Our goal was to describe the effects of load, sex, and crank position on the kinetics, kinematics, and performance of the upper body WAnT. METHODS: Eighteen participants (9 females) performed three WAnTs at 3%, 4%, and 5% of body mass. Arm crank forces, 2D kinematics, and performance variables were recorded during each WAnT. RESULTS: Our results showed an increase of ~49% effective force, ~36% peak power, ~5° neck flexion, and ~30° shoulder flexion from 3% to 5% load ( P < 0.05). Mean power and anaerobic capacity decreased by 15%, with no changes in fatigue index ( P < 0.05). The positions of higher force efficiency were at 12 and 6 o'clock. The least force efficiency occurred at 3 o'clock ( P < 0.05). Sex differences showed that males produced 97% more effective force and 109% greater mean power than females, with 11.7% more force efficiency ( P < 0.001). Males had 16° more head/neck flexion than females, and females had greater elbow joint variability with 17° more wrist extension at higher loads. Males cycled ~32% faster at 3% versus 5% WAnT load with a 65% higher angular velocity than females. Grip strength, maximal voluntary isometric contraction, mass, and height positively correlated with peak and mean power ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, load, sex, and crank position have a significant impact on performance of the WAnT. These factors should be considered when developing and implementing an upper body WAnT.