European journal of applied physiology · 2022
Kinematic differences between uphill roller skiing and on-snow skiing using the V2 skating technique.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Myklebust Håvard, Losnegard Thomas, Hallén Jostein
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Roller skiing is the primary sport-specific training and testing mode during pre-competition periods for cross-country skiers, biathletes, and Nordic combined athletes. The present study aimed to compare the kinematics between uphill roller skiing and on-snow skiing using the V2 sub-technique.
METHODS: In a cross-over design, nine well-trained male skiers performed short trials (< 40 s) at constant inclination (8.0°), speed (3.0 m‧s-1), and controlled rolling/gliding friction on asphalt (in the fall), on the treadmill (in the fall and winter), and during on-snow skiing (in the winter). Kinematic data were collected using a validated inertial measurement unit system.
RESULTS: Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed no differences between treadmill and asphalt roller skiing. Further, including on-snow skiing showed moderate to good reliability (ICC ≥ 0.63, p ≤ 0.001) for ground-contact temporal variables. However, on-snow skiing moderately increased hip range of motion around the longitudinal axis (22.2 ± 7.7° vs. 14.1 ± 4.7°), lateral hip displacement (44.1 ± 7.1 cm vs. 37.2 ± 6.6 cm) and pole push times (422 ± 41 ms vs. 386 ± 31 ms), and on-snow skiing was characterized by altered hip rotational patterns compared to roller skiing.
CONCLUSION: V2 roller ski skating simulates on-snow ski skating to a large extent, but the mechanical properties of the skis and/or surface hardness systematically alter skiers' hip movements and pole push times. This implies a potential for equipment optimization to increase training specificity during pre-competition periods and highlights a need for future studies to examine the kinematic effects of snow hardness on all sub-techniques.
METHODS: In a cross-over design, nine well-trained male skiers performed short trials (< 40 s) at constant inclination (8.0°), speed (3.0 m‧s-1), and controlled rolling/gliding friction on asphalt (in the fall), on the treadmill (in the fall and winter), and during on-snow skiing (in the winter). Kinematic data were collected using a validated inertial measurement unit system.
RESULTS: Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed no differences between treadmill and asphalt roller skiing. Further, including on-snow skiing showed moderate to good reliability (ICC ≥ 0.63, p ≤ 0.001) for ground-contact temporal variables. However, on-snow skiing moderately increased hip range of motion around the longitudinal axis (22.2 ± 7.7° vs. 14.1 ± 4.7°), lateral hip displacement (44.1 ± 7.1 cm vs. 37.2 ± 6.6 cm) and pole push times (422 ± 41 ms vs. 386 ± 31 ms), and on-snow skiing was characterized by altered hip rotational patterns compared to roller skiing.
CONCLUSION: V2 roller ski skating simulates on-snow ski skating to a large extent, but the mechanical properties of the skis and/or surface hardness systematically alter skiers' hip movements and pole push times. This implies a potential for equipment optimization to increase training specificity during pre-competition periods and highlights a need for future studies to examine the kinematic effects of snow hardness on all sub-techniques.