No abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify and describe the exercise intensity of ski mountaineering racing, and to identify the best physiological predictors of ski mountaineering racing. Before participating in the race in which heart rate (HR) and speed were continuously recorded, 10 trained ski-mountaineers performed a field maximal test to determine the first ventilatory threshold (VT1) and the respiratory compensation threshold (RCT) in order to establish 3 exercise intensity zones (Z1: below VT1, Z2: between VT1 and RCT, and Z3: above RCT). Energy cost (EC) of each subject was estimated on the HR/ V˙O2 relationship obtained during the field maximal test. VT1 and RCT threshold were equal to 84.2±3.0 and 94.5±1.7% of HR (max). Race time was significantly correlated with V˙O2max (r = -0.87), VT1 (r = -0.82) and RCT (r = -0.85) expressed for body mass unit. The mean race time and the mean HR were 101±11 min and 93.4±1.8% of HR (max). The % race time spent in Z1, Z2 and Z3, were 7.0±4.8, 51.3±4.7 and 42.0±6.5%, respectively. The mean value of EC during the two uphill of the race was 14.3±2.6 J x kg(-1) x m(-1). HR and speed decreased significantly during the second uphill whereas EC increased significantly by ∼15%. Data obtained in the present study represent the first qualitative description of physiology demand of ski mountaineering racing. The long period of time spent just below and above RCT suggest that ski-mountaineering can be viewed as one of the most strenuous endurance sports like cross-country skiing, running and off-road biking. In addition to high aerobic capacities, body mass seems to appear as a key factor given that performance in ski mountaineering is strongly correlated to relative common physiological variables. The changes of HR, speed and EC during the second uphill, which indicate the prevalence of fatigue, confirm the exhaustive character of ski mountaineering.

The SRM power measuring crank system is nowadays a popular device for cycling power output (PO) measurements in the field and in laboratories. The PowerTap (CycleOps, Madison, USA) is a more recent and less well-known device that allows mobile PO measurements of cycling via the rear wheel hub. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the PowerTap by comparing it with the most accurate (i.e. the scientific model) of the SRM system. The validity of the PowerTap is tested during i) sub-maximal incremental intensities (ranging from 100 to 420 W) on a treadmill with different pedalling cadences (45 to 120 rpm) and cycling positions (standing and seated) on different grades, ii) a continuous sub-maximal intensity lasting 30 min, iii) a maximal intensity (8-s sprint), and iiii) real road cycling. The reliability is assessed by repeating ten times the sub-maximal incremental and continuous tests. The results show a good validity of the PowerTap during sub-maximal intensities between 100 and 450 W (mean PO difference -1.2 +/- 1.3 %) when it is compared to the scientific SRM model, but less validity for the maximal PO during sprint exercise, where the validity appears to depend on the gear ratio. The reliability of the PowerTap during the sub-maximal intensities is similar to the scientific SRM model (the coefficient of variation is respectively 0.9 to 2.9 % and 0.7 to 2.1 % for PowerTap and SRM). The PowerTap must be considered as a suitable device for PO measurements during sub-maximal real road cycling and in sub-maximal laboratory tests.

The capacity to predict the heart rate (HR) and speed at the first (VT1) and second (VT2) ventilatory thresholds was evaluated during an incremental ski-mountaineering test using heart rate variability (HRV). Nine skiers performed a field test to exhaustion on an alpine skiing track. VT1 and VT2 were individually determined by visual analysis from gas exchanges (VT1V and VT2V) and time-varying spectral HRV analysis (VT1fH, VT2fH and VT2H). VT1 could not be determined with the HRV methods used. On the contrary, the VT2 was determined in all skiers. No significant difference between HR and speed at VT2H and VT2V was observed (174.3 ± 5.6 vs. 174.3 ± 5.3 bpm, and 6.3 ± 0.9 and 6.3 ± 0.9 km h(-1), respectively). Strong correlations were obtained for HR (r = 0.91) and speed (r = 0.92) at VT2H and VT2V with small limits of agreement (±3.6 bpm for HR). Our results indicated that HRV enables determination of HR and speed at VT2 during a specific ski-mountaineering incremental test. These findings provide practical applications for skiers in order to evaluate and control specific training loads, at least when referring to VT2.

Purpose:The Ergomo®Pro (EP) is a power meter that measures power output (PO) during outdoor and indoor cycling via 2 optoelectronic sensors located in the bottom bracket axis. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and the reproducibility of the EP compared with the SRM crank set and Powertap hub (PT).Method:The validity of the EP was tested in the laboratory during 8 submaximal incremental tests (PO: 100 to 400 W), eight 30-min submaximal constant-power tests (PO = 180 W), and 8 sprint tests (PO > 750 W) and in the field during 8 training sessions (time: 181 ± 73 min; PO: ~140 to 150 W). The reproducibility was assessed by calculating the coefficient of PO variation (CV) during the submaximal incremental and constant tests.Results:The EP provided a significantly higher PO than the SRM and PT during the submaximal incremental test: The mean PO differences were +6.3% ± 2.5% and +11.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. The difference was greater during field training sessions (+12.0% ± 5.7% and +16.5% ± 5.9%) but lower during sprint tests (+1.6% ± 2.5% and +3.2% ± 2.7%). The reproducibility of the EP is lower than those of the SRM and PT (CV = 4.1% ± 1.8%, 1.9% ± 0.4%, and 2.1% ± 0.8%, respectively).Conclusions:The EP power meter appears less valid and reliable than the SRM and PT systems.