The Anaerobic Capacity of Cross-Country Skiers: The Effect of Computational Method and Skiing Sub-technique

Abstract

Anaerobic capacity is an important performance-determining variable of sprint cross-country skiing. Nevertheless, to date, no study has directly compared the anaerobic capacity, determined using the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) method and gross efficiency (GE) method, while using different skiing sub-techniques.Purpose: To compare the anaerobic capacity assessed using two different MAOD approaches (including and excluding a measured y-intercept) and the GE method during double poling (DP) and diagonal stride (DS) cross-country skiing.Methods: After an initial familiarization trial, 16 well-trained male cross-country skiers performed, in each sub-technique on separate occasions, a submaximal protocol consisting of eight 4-min bouts at intensities between ∼47-78% ofVO 2peak followed by a 4-min roller-skiing time trial, with the order of sub-technique being randomized. Linear and polynomial speed-metabolic rate relationships were constructed for both sub-techniques, while using a measured y-intercept (8+Y LIN and 8+Y POL ) or not (8-Y LIN and 8-Y POL ), to determine the anaerobic capacity using the MAOD method. The average GE (GE AVG ) of all eight submaximal exercise bouts or the GE of the last submaximal exercise bout (GE LAST ) were used to calculate the anaerobic capacity using the GE method. Repeated measures ANOVA were used to test differences in anaerobic capacity between methods/approaches.Results: A significant interaction was found between computational method and skiing sub-technique (P < 0.001, η 2 = 0.51) for the anaerobic capacity estimates. The different methodologies resulted in significantly different anaerobic capacity values in DP (P < 0.001, η 2 = 0.74) and in DS (P = 0.016, η 2 = 0.27). The 8-Y POL model resulted in the smallest standard error of the estimate (SEE, 0.24 W·kg −1 ) of the MAOD methods in DP, while the 8-Y LIN resulted in a smaller SEE value than the 8+Y LIN model (0.17 vs. 0.33 W·kg −1 ) in DS. The 8-Y LIN and GE LAST resulted in the closest agreement in anaerobic capacity values in DS (typical error 2.1 mL O 2 eq·kg −1 ). Andersson et al. Estimating Anaerobic Energy ProductionConclusions: It is discouraged to use the same method to estimate the anaerobic capacity in DP and DS sub-techniques. In DP, a polynomial MAOD method (8-Y POL ) seems to be the preferred method, whereas the 8-Y LIN , GE AVG , and GE LAST can all be used for DS, but not interchangeable, with GE LAST being the least time-consuming method.

Physiological responses and cycle characteristics during double-poling versus diagonal-stride roller-skiing in junior cross-country skiers

“…By contrast, EC and GE were relatively constant during DS. This is in agreement with previous findings (Andersson et al 2017(Andersson et al , 2020Sagelv et al 2018), and the differences in EC and GE between the two sub-techniques are likely to be related to several biomechanical and physiological factors. During DS, propulsion is generated by both the arms and legs in a diagonal fashion, while propulsion during DP is generated solely through the poling action (Nilsson et al 2004).…”

“…In the current study, the female and male skiers recorded V O 2 peak values that were 7.1% and 8.4% lower, respectively, in DP compared to DS. A recent study has reported an even smaller difference in senior male skiers, with a 4% lower value in DP versus DS (Andersson et al 2020). The greater emphasis on increasing upper body strength and endurance in modern XC skiers, compared to 2-5 decades ago, appears to have reduced this difference in V O 2 peak values between DP and DS (Stöggl et al 2019).…”

The Dynamics of the Anaerobic Energy Contribution During a Simulated Mass-Start Competition While Roller-Ski Skating on a Treadmill

“…Which methods agree most with each other differed between studies, which can most likely be explained by the difference in exercise modality, i.e. XC skiing vs. cycling, and within the XC-skiing studies by the difference in technique [skating in the current study vs. classical skiing in Andersson and McGawley (2018) and Andersson et al (2020)]. Although the average difference between the GE method and MAOD 4−Y is smallest, on an individual basis the difference between these two methods is just as substantial as between the GE method and the MAOD 4+Y and between the two MAOD approaches.…”

“…To determine the anaerobic energy contribution using both computational methods, the submaximal and supramaximal workloads used were performed on the same inclines. 13 We hypothesized that large individual differences would be found between methods, comparable as to what has been found during classical roller-skiing time trials (Andersson and McGawley, 2018;Andersson et al, 2020).…”

Methodological Guidelines Designed to Improve the Quality of Research on Cross-Country Skiing

“…Here, VO 2 during repeated submaximal steady-state bouts of exercise are used to predict the VO 2 demand at supra-maximal rates of work, allowing the accumulated O 2 deficit to be calculated. However, in recent years determination of anaerobic power using the GE approach has been used as an alternative, especially since this method is less time-consuming [3,4,33]. In any case, details concerning the calculations performed, including the input variables, should be reported.…”