## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influential Variables in the Wingate Anaerobic Test
#### 3.1.2 Resistance of the Cyclo-Ergometer  
Choosing a force load for each subject that produces the highest possible power peak and high average power is an important and, so far, only partially solved challenge. The strength originally suggested by the [PERSON] group was based on a study of a small group of young untrained individuals and has since been found to be too low or insufficient for most adults. The question of the optimal strength of the WAT has mainly been studied empirically by repeating this test with different loads in various populations. A priori, it seemed evident that the same load was optimal for maximum power, average power and fatigue rate in the WAT. The first study into suitable resistance for the test was the one carried out by [PERSON] et al. [14] on 12 highly trained adults, in which they concluded that resistance in the WAT has to be established in connection with anthropometric measurements, weight and volume of the subjects' legs. A couple of years later, [PERSON] et al. [34] agreed with previous researchers, stating that the strength of the test must be related to body somatotype and body composition. However, they added that it must be, above all, a function of the subject's level of physical fitness and recommend a strength of 0.087 kg/kg for active male students. They also confirmed that the optimum strength for PP was higher than necessary so as to maximise MP. A few years later still, [PERSON] [10] recommended using a braking force of 0.095 kg/kg in non-sporting adults and 1 in adult athletes (>18 years). In the case of the obese, women or children, these figures should be lower (Table 2). In 1985, [PERSON] et al. [12] studied two different resistances in 19 young males, concluding that the resistance initially recommended for the test (0.075 kg/kg) did not seem to be the most suitable for the purpose of obtaining the highest PP and PM levels. Later, [PERSON] et al. [35] studied which was the most suitable resistance between 0.075-0.085-0.095 and 0.105 kg/kg of body weight in 46 women from different types of sport and 25 non-athletes, observing that the greater the resistance applied, the greater the PP obtained in the test. They also stated that the most suitable resistance for this population would be 0.105 kg/kg of body weight, even higher, while to obtain the highest MP, suitable resistance was 0.085 kg/kg of body weight. Both [PERSON] et al. [36] and [PERSON] et al. [37] studied suitable resistance in 15 untrained subjects and 30 sedentary university students, respectively, and both concluded that the highest PP levels recorded were with a higher resistance than the original, namely 0.084 kg/kg body weight and 0.095, respectively. According to [PERSON] et al. [38], who carried out research on 16 university PE students, the highest PP was 11% of body weight. This same author, together with other colleagues, [PERSON] et al. [39], compared the most suitable resistance for assessment of PP, MP and FI in 10 recreational and 10 highly trained subjects, concluding that both groups have a higher resistance than the original one (10% and 11% of the body mass, respectively). They considered the fact that trained subjects need a higher level of resistance than untrained ones. Lastly, two studies were conducted on elite cyclists, namely that by [PERSON] et al. [40] with 29 (13 girls), and by [PERSON] [41] on 15 cyclists (male). The former compared resistances of 0.08 and 0.095 kg/kg body weight and recommended a resistance of 0.095 kg/kg, while the latter compared resistances of between 7.5-10.5-12.5 and 14.5% body weight in order to achieve greater power in a 15 s test. By administering a force equivalent to 0.5 J/rev/kg higher or lower than the optimum, it underestimates the average power by only 3 to \(-\)5% in the men and women who performed the test [34]. In conclusion, the force needed to produce peak power is 20 to 30% higher than originally suggested.