 |
| |
| Maximal performance | Submaximal performance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Parameters examined |
Strength/power | Body composition |
VO2max/peak | Time trial | TTE, vVO2max/peak, PPO, Vmax | Blood lactate (AeT; AnT), anaerobic capacity | Eco/Eff/Gross eff | Biomechanics (kinetics, kinematics, EMG) |
| Paavolainen et al. 1993 | Anthropometrics (body mass and height); % body fat and fat-free mass estimated from skinfold thickness; calf, thigh and arm girth; SJ and CMJ; maximal isometric force (ISO max) and various force-time parameters of the leg extensor muscles; AnT and VO2max while ski-walking on a treadmill. |
ISO max leg: ND EXP: Time to produce submaximal force at 60% of ISO max: s 28% ES = 0.76; P<0.05< SJ: S 11.3% ES=1.46; P<0.01< CMJ: C 8.2% ES=1.34; P<0.01< CON: ND |
BM; Fat (%), fat-free mass; calf, thigh and arm girth: ND | VO2max ND | - | - | AeT ND AnT ND | - | - |
| Hoff et al. |
1RM sitting cable pull-down; AnT and VO2max RUN; AnT and VO2peak DP_ergo; cost of poling and TTE DP_ergo; body mass, blood levels of Hb and HCT | EXP: 1RM sitting cable pull-down: p 14.5% ES=0.85; P<0.001< Peak force at 1RM: P 36.1%, ES=9.39; P<0.05< Time to peak force at 80% 1RM: > 29.7% ES=0.92; P<0.05< Time to peak force at 60% 1RM: > 22.4% ES=0.97; P<0.05< Time to peak force during DPE: > 27% ES=0.86; P<0.01< CON: ND |
ND in BM | VO2peak DPE, ND | - | STR: TTE_DPE: T 137% ES=2.09; P<0.001<; PO DPE: P 26% ES=7.22; P<0.05< CON: TTE DPE: T 58% P<0.01< |
AnT ND | STR: DPE economy S 32.5% >ES=1.75; P<0.05< CON: ND |
STR: force in %1RM during DPE: > 34.8% ES=0.88, P<0.05< CON: ND Poling frequency ND |
| Hoff et al. |
Body mass; 1RM sitting cable pull-down; peak force, peak force last repetition, time-to-peak force, time-to-peak force (TPF)_last repetition; AnT and VO2max RUN; AnT and VO2peak DPE | EXP: 1RM: E 9.9% 9ES=0.80; P<0.05<; Peak force at 60% and 80% 1RM: a 33-34% ES=1.09-1.19; P<0.05<; TPF_last repetition: T 60% and 50% aES=1.45; P<0.05< CON: Peak and time to peak force at 60% 1RM: fP<0.05< |
ND in BM | ND in VO2max (RUN) or VO2peak DP in either of the two groups. | - | EXP: TTE_DPE: > 56% ES=1.42; P<0.05< CON: TTE_DPE: > 25% P<0.05< |
ND | EXP: Work economy (cost of poling) during DP: > 56% ES=1.44; P<0.05< CON: ND |
- |
| Østerås et al. |
Body mass; 1RM sitting cable pull-down; peak force, peak force last repetition, time to peak force, time to peak force last repetition; AnT and VO2max RUN; AnT and VO2peak DPE; cost of poling and TTE_DPE | EXP: 1RM: E 22% ES=2.18; P<0.05<; Relative strength: ; 22% ES=2.67; P<0.001< Peak power increased, except at the two lowest loads, with a shift in the force-power curve towards higher speeds and loads. CON: ND |
ND in BM | VO2peak DPE: ND | - | EXP: TTE_DPE: E 61% >ES=1.71; P<0.05< CON: TTE_DPE: C 21% P<0.05< |
Peak BLC, AnT: ND | EXP: Exercise DP economy: E 8.8%, ES=1.23; P<0.01< CON: ND |
Poling frequency: ND |
| Nilsson et al. |
DPE: power output during 30 s and 6 min; work efficiency (VO2 at a given work load) and BLC at submax; VO2peak DP; DP frequency; VO2max RUN |
- | - | IT180-s: VO2peak: > 4.2% ES=0.57; P<0.05< IT20-s & CON: ND |
IT20-s: 30-s DPE performance (mean power): > 22% ES=0.95; P<0.05< 6-min DPE performance (mean power): > 8% ES=0.50; P<0.05< IT180-s:30-s DPE performance (mean power): I 17% ES=0.71; P<0.05< 6-min DPE performance (mean power): 6 15% ES=0.72; P<0.05< C: ND |
IT20-s: 30-s DPE peak power: I 21% ES=1.05; P<0.05< IT180-s: 30-s DPE peak power: I 17% ES=0.71; P<0.05< CON: ND |
IT180-s: BLC_sub B 18% ES=0.68, P<0.05< IT20-s & CON: ND |
IT20-s: Work efficiency (VO2 submax): 9% ES=0.66; P<0.05< IT180-s: Work efficiency (VO2 submax): 7% ES=0.52; P<0.05< CON: ND |
IT180-s: Mean 6-min poling force TT: I 11% ES=0.43; P<0.05< IT20-s & CON: ND IT20-s: 6-min poling frequency TT: I 11% ES=0.64; P<0.05< IT180-s & CON: ND |
| Nesser et al. |
Body weight and skinfold (%BF); UB power freestyle arm ergometer (TTE); UB strength Vasa Trainer (10RM); TT DP RS (total time); TT DP RS uphill; DP TT DP RS flat; race results |
RB: UB power: R 0.29W/kg /ES=5.59; P<0.05< UB strength: U 0.99J/kg >ES=5.23; P<0.05< SS & WT & & CC & C: ND |
ND in body mass, body height, % body fat. | - | RB: TT total: R 36 s ES=3.04; P<0.05< TT uphill: T 22 s ES=2.88; P<0.05< TT_flat: T 14 s ES=1.59; P<0.05< SS & WT & Cir & C: ND All groups improved race performance. RB > Cir, SS and W, Cir > WT. Changes were inversely related to changes in relative UBS and UBP, as well as in TT DP RS. |
- | - | - | - |
| Mikkola et al. |
Anthropometrics: body mass, height, % body fat (estimated from skinfold thickness); calf and thigh girth; maximal isometric force (ISO max) and various force-time parameters of the leg extensor muscles; bilateral maximal dynamic force of leg extensor muscles; maximal isometric force of trunk flexors and extensors; EMG leg extensors during strength test; AnT and VO2max while ski-walking on a treadmill; 30-m DP RS test (V30DP) with 20-m flying start on an indoor track; Maximal Anaerobic Skiing Test (MAST; 9-10x150m Rest: 100 s); DP work economy; maximal 2000-m DP test (mean velocity = V2K); VO2peak DP | I & C: Maximal isometric force of the leg extensors: both b6%, P<0.05. I: absolute forces in earlier portion (0-100 ms) of force-time curve: p 18%, ES=1.35, P<0.05 IEMG m. IEMG m. action (0-100ms) 27%, ES=1.39, P<0.05 C: ND |
- | No significant changes in VO2max in either I or C |
I: ND C: V2K 2.9% >P<0.01< |
I: V30DP I 1.4% ES=0.81; P<0.05< C: ND |
- | I: improved sport-specific DP economy during the 2-km test: VO2: d 7% P<0.05< C: ND |
- |
| Losnegard et al. |
1RM seated pull-down and half squat; CSA of m. Energy consumption at submaximal RS intensities; DP performance (20-s and 5-min) on a DPE; DP and Skate RS TT (DP 1.1 km and Skate 1.3 km); 100-m DP; Counter movement jump (CMJ) performance. |
I: 1RM seated pull-down: p19% >ES=5.74; P<0.01< 1RM half squat: 112%, 1ES=6.81; P<0.01< C: ND |
No difference between groups in UB LBM. I in UB LBM increased by 3%, P<0.05 C: ND Total body weight was unchanged in both groups. |
I: VO2max skate: > 7% ES=3.29; P<0.01< C: ND VO2max RUN: ND |
1.1-km DP performance (DPE):I: > 7.4% ES=0.68; P<0.05< C: C 6.0% ES=5.74; P<0.05< 1.3-km Skate RS performance: I: I 3.7%, ES=0.26; P=0.14E C: C 3.3% P<0.05< |
I: 100-m RS Sprint: > 1.3% P=0.1P C: ND I & CON: 20-s power output with DP: > 8.3% vs. > 6.2% both P<0.001< |
No group differences with respect to BLa, or HR during submaximal RS | No group differences with respect to VO2 during submaximal RS I: RER submaximal stages: I 4.4-5.5% 4P<0.05< C: ND |
Poling frequency: ND CMJ: Trend towards decrease in C with no change in I |
| Rønnestad et al. 2012 | Architectural changes of m. |
I: 1RM deep squat: I12% 1ES=2.9; P<0.01< 1RM seated pull-down: 123% 2ES=1.5; P<0.01< SJ: S8.8% 8ES=1.1; P<0.05< C: ND |
No changes in total body mass. | No change in VO2max skate RS | No changes in 7.5-km TT RS performance. | - | No change in BLC during submaximal RS. | No group difference in work economy. | - |
| Skattebo et al. |
Seated pull-down 1RM; Upper arm circumference; VO2max RUN; Submaximal O2-cost; VO2peak DP; 20-s DPE performance; 3-min DPE performance (rested: sprint-test and fatigued: finishing-test). |
Seated pull-down 1RM increased more in I (24%) 2 Upper arm circumference increased more in I (3.3%) UP<0.001< than C (2%) P<0.05< with a group difference of 1.3% dES=0.18; P=0.05E. |
Body weight increased in both I (2.5%, P<0.01) and C (2.6%, P<0.05), with no group difference. |
Absolute VO2max RUN was unchanged in both groups, while the relative values were reduced in I (–3.7%) but unchanged in C. Absolute VO2peak DP increased both in I (2.9%, P<0.1) and C (7.7%, P<0.1), whereas the relative values were unchanged. |
No differences in DP performance tests. |
Average power output increased by 17.1% in I and 16.2% in C (3-min TT DP sprint test) and 14.9% vs. 13.1% (3-min TT DP finishing- test) with no group differences. |
- | Submaximal O2-cost demonstrated similar changes or were unchanged in both groups. | Poling frequency: ND |
| Vandbakk et al. |
Physiological (VO2peak) and kinematic (cycle length and rate) responses during submaximal and maximal diagonal and DP treadmill RS incl. peak treadmill speed; sitting poling-specific maximal UB strength (1RM) and average power at 40% 1RM (P40) at maximal speed. | I: 1RM I 18% >ES=1.20; P<0.035<; P40 ; 20% ES=1.06; P=0.057E C: 1RM C 10% P<0.035<; P40 P 14% P=0.057P |
ND in BM | I: VO2max DIA (L/min): / 9% ES=0.75; P<0.05< VO2max DP: 10% ES=0.47; P>0.05> C: VO2max DIA (L/min): ND VO2max DP: 6% P<0.05< |
- | TTE DIA: No within- or between-group differences TTE DP: T 18% P<0.01 in CON onlyC |
- | No change in oxygen cost while skiing with DP or DIA at submaximal intensities | No changes in cycle length and rate during DP and DIA |
| Øfsteng et al. 2018 | 1RM in UB exercises; work economy; TTE (Test 1) and TTE after a prolonged test (Test 2); neural activation; oxygen saturation in muscle; DP kinematics during prolonged submaximal DP RS followed directly by a TTE-test (Test 2). The difference TTE_Test1 – Test 2 (i.e., TTEdiff) aimed to reflect the skier’s ability to maintain DP performance after prolonged exercise. As vibration did not induce any additional effect on strength or endurance gains, values for the two strength training groups were here pooled (STR). |
STR: 1RM seated pull down: 1 8.9% >ES=1.90; P=0.023E 1RM triceps press: 1 21.7% >ES=1.78; P<0.01< C: ND |
ND in BM STR: UB LBM: : 2.8% >P =0.006P |
VO2peak DP: ND | - | STR: TTE (Test 1): (9.6% 9ES=0.27; P=0.55E TTE (Test 2): > 19.6% >ES=0.68; P=0.07E Post-test TTEdiff was significantly reduced compared to C (-0.45 min vs. -1.32 min) C: TTE (Test 1): T 7.6% TTE (Test 2): 8.8% |
In both STR and C post-PO at 4 mmol L-1 was higher than the pre-test value |
Both STR and C reduced VO2-consumption at 10 km and 12 km/h. Physiological response during prolonged submax DP: ND EXP reduced RPE during final 20 min |
EMG and kinematics: ND |