Are the resistance to fatigue assessment interchangeable ? Comparative analysis of Wingate Anaerobic Test, knee isokinetic fatigability protocol and jumping fatigability protocol performance

Anaerobic fatigability resistance assessment is crucial for athletic performance monitoring, yet the interchangeability of common tests remains unclear. This study compared three validated protocols—the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT), isokinetic knee fatigability test, and jumping fatigability protocol—in eighteen recreationally volleyball players. Performance metrics (peak/mean power, Peak Torque/Maximal Work, jumping height, fatigue index), metabolic responses (lactatemia, heart rate, breathing rate), and perceptual fatigue (visual analog scale) were analyzed. Results showed limited interchangeability between tests. While WAnT and isokinetic peak performance correlated moderately (r = 0.8, p<0.0001), no significant relationships existed between the jumping protocol and other tests. Fatigue induction differed significantly: jumping (27.8 ± 8.4%) lower than WAnT (43.9 ± 9.3%) itself lower than isokinetic (~55%), suggesting task-specific fatigue mechanisms. The WAnT elicited the highest delta lactatemia (11.6±1.9 mmol/L), while heart rate, breathing rate and perceptual fatigue was similar across protocols. No associations were found between performance, metabolic and perceptual responses. These findings indicate that these fatigability tests are not interchangeable due to distinct physiological demands. The jumping protocol offers a sport-specific, cost-effective alternative for jump-dominant athlete. Practitioners should select tests based on movement specificity rather than assuming equivalent insights across protocols.