dc.description.abstract | We compare the macro-kinematics of six elite female cross-country skiers competing
in 1.1-km Sprint and 10.5-km Distance classical technique events on consecutive
days under similar weather and track conditions. The relative use of double pole (DP),
kick-double pole (KDP), diagonal stride (DS), tucking (Tuck) and turning (Turn) subtechniques, plus each technique’s respective velocities, cycle lengths and cycle rates
were monitored using a single micro-sensor unit worn by each skier during the Sprint
qualification, semi-final and finals, and multiple laps of the Distance race. Over a 1.0-km
section of track common to both Sprint and Distance events, the mean race velocity,
cyclical sub-technique velocities, and cycle rates were higher during the Sprint race,
while Tuck and Turn velocities were similar. Velocities with KDP and DS on the common
terrain were higher in the Sprint (KDP +12%, DS +23%) due to faster cycle rates
(KDP +8%, DS +11%) and longer cycle lengths (KDP +5%, DS +10%), while the DP
velocity was higher (+8%) with faster cycle rate (+16%) despite a shorter cycle length
(−9%). During the Sprint the percentage of total distance covered using DP was greater
(+15%), with less use of Tuck (−19%). Across all events and rounds, DP was the most
used sub-technique in terms of distance, followed by Tuck, DS, Turn and KDP. KDP
was employed relatively little, and during the Sprint by only half the participants. Tuck
was the fastest sub-technique followed by Turn, DP, KDP, and DS. These findings reveal
differences in the macro-kinematic characteristics and strategies utilized during Sprint
and Distance events, confirm the use of higher cycle rates in the Sprint, and increase
our understanding of the performance demands of cross-country skiing competition. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Marsland, F., Anson, J., Waddington, G., Holmberg, H-C. & Chapman, D.W. (2018). Macro-kinematic differences between Sprint and Distance cross-country skiing competitions using the classical technique. <i>Frontiers in Physiology</i>, 9:570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00570 | en_US |