AUTHOR=Andersson Erik P. , Noordhof Dionne A. , Lögdal Nestor 

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

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=2

YEAR=2020

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2020.00037

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2020.00037

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=<p>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.</p><p><bold>Purpose:</bold> 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.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> 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% of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>V</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>O<sub>2peak</sub> 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+<italic>Y</italic><sub>LIN</sub> and 8+Y<sub>POL</sub>) or not (8–Y<sub>LIN</sub> and 8–Y<sub>POL</sub>), to determine the anaerobic capacity using the MAOD method. The average GE (GE<sub>AVG</sub>) of all eight submaximal exercise bouts or the GE of the last submaximal exercise bout (GE<sub>LAST</sub>) 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.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> A significant interaction was found between computational method and skiing sub-technique (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.51) for the anaerobic capacity estimates. The different methodologies resulted in significantly different anaerobic capacity values in DP (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.74) and in DS (<italic>P</italic> = 0.016, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.27). The 8-Y<sub>POL</sub> model resulted in the smallest standard error of the estimate (SEE, 0.24 W·kg<sup>−1</sup>) of the MAOD methods in DP, while the 8-Y<sub>LIN</sub> resulted in a smaller SEE value than the 8+<italic>Y</italic><sub>LIN</sub> model (0.17 vs. 0.33 W·kg<sup>−1</sup>) in DS. The 8-Y<sub>LIN</sub> and GE<sub>LAST</sub> resulted in the closest agreement in anaerobic capacity values in DS (typical error 2.1 mL O<sub>2</sub>eq·kg<sup>−1</sup>).</p><p><bold>Conclusions:</bold> 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<sub>POL</sub>) seems to be the preferred method, whereas the 8-Y<sub>LIN</sub>, GE<sub>AVG</sub>, and GE<sub>LAST</sub> can all be used for DS, but not interchangeable, with GE<sub>LAST</sub> being the least time-consuming method.</p>