Cargando…

The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there are energy-efficiency differences between the execution of the old-fashioned double-poling technique (DP(OLD)) and the modern double-poling technique (DP(MOD)) at a submaximal work intensity among elite male cross-country skiers. Fifteen elit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carlsson, Tomas, Fjordell, Wilma, Wedholm, Lars, Swarén, Mikael, Carlsson, Magnus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9157588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35663501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.850541
_version_ 1784718666009411584
author Carlsson, Tomas
Fjordell, Wilma
Wedholm, Lars
Swarén, Mikael
Carlsson, Magnus
author_facet Carlsson, Tomas
Fjordell, Wilma
Wedholm, Lars
Swarén, Mikael
Carlsson, Magnus
author_sort Carlsson, Tomas
collection PubMed
description The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there are energy-efficiency differences between the execution of the old-fashioned double-poling technique (DP(OLD)) and the modern double-poling technique (DP(MOD)) at a submaximal work intensity among elite male cross-country skiers. Fifteen elite male cross-country skiers completed two 4-min tests at a constant mechanical work rate (MWR) using the DP(MOD) and DP(OLD). During the last minute of each test, the mean oxygen uptake (VO(2)) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were analyzed, from which the metabolic rate (MR) and gross efficiency (GE) were calculated. In addition, the difference between pretest and posttest blood-lactate concentrations (BLa(diff)) was determined. For each technique, skiers' joint angles (i.e., heel, ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, and elbow) were analyzed at the highest and lowest positions during the double-poling cycle. Paired-samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between DP(MOD) and DP(OLD) outcomes. There were no significant differences in either VO(2)mean, MR, GE, or BLa(diff) (all P > 0.05) between the DP(MOD) and DP(OLD) tests. DP(MOD) execution was associated with a higher RER (P < 0.05). Significant technique-specific differences were found in either the highest and/or the lowest position for all six analyzed joint angles (all P < 0.001). Hence, despite decades of double-poling technique development, which is reflected in the significant biomechanical differences between DP(OLD) and DP(MOD) execution, at submaximal work intensity, the modern technique is not more energy efficient than the old-fashioned technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9157588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91575882022-06-02 The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity Carlsson, Tomas Fjordell, Wilma Wedholm, Lars Swarén, Mikael Carlsson, Magnus Front Sports Act Living Sports and Active Living The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there are energy-efficiency differences between the execution of the old-fashioned double-poling technique (DP(OLD)) and the modern double-poling technique (DP(MOD)) at a submaximal work intensity among elite male cross-country skiers. Fifteen elite male cross-country skiers completed two 4-min tests at a constant mechanical work rate (MWR) using the DP(MOD) and DP(OLD). During the last minute of each test, the mean oxygen uptake (VO(2)) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were analyzed, from which the metabolic rate (MR) and gross efficiency (GE) were calculated. In addition, the difference between pretest and posttest blood-lactate concentrations (BLa(diff)) was determined. For each technique, skiers' joint angles (i.e., heel, ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, and elbow) were analyzed at the highest and lowest positions during the double-poling cycle. Paired-samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between DP(MOD) and DP(OLD) outcomes. There were no significant differences in either VO(2)mean, MR, GE, or BLa(diff) (all P > 0.05) between the DP(MOD) and DP(OLD) tests. DP(MOD) execution was associated with a higher RER (P < 0.05). Significant technique-specific differences were found in either the highest and/or the lowest position for all six analyzed joint angles (all P < 0.001). Hence, despite decades of double-poling technique development, which is reflected in the significant biomechanical differences between DP(OLD) and DP(MOD) execution, at submaximal work intensity, the modern technique is not more energy efficient than the old-fashioned technique. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9157588/ /pubmed/35663501 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.850541 Text en Copyright © 2022 Carlsson, Fjordell, Wedholm, Swarén and Carlsson. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Sports and Active Living
Carlsson, Tomas
Fjordell, Wilma
Wedholm, Lars
Swarén, Mikael
Carlsson, Magnus
The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title_full The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title_fullStr The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title_full_unstemmed The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title_short The Modern Double-Poling Technique Is Not More Energy Efficient Than the Old-Fashioned Double-Poling Technique at a Submaximal Work Intensity
title_sort modern double-poling technique is not more energy efficient than the old-fashioned double-poling technique at a submaximal work intensity
topic Sports and Active Living
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9157588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35663501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.850541
work_keys_str_mv AT carlssontomas themoderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT fjordellwilma themoderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT wedholmlars themoderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT swarenmikael themoderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT carlssonmagnus themoderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT carlssontomas moderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT fjordellwilma moderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT wedholmlars moderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT swarenmikael moderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity
AT carlssonmagnus moderndoublepolingtechniqueisnotmoreenergyefficientthantheoldfashioneddoublepolingtechniqueatasubmaximalworkintensity