Athletic Profile Of Elite Alpine Skir Racers: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACSM Abstract PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review all anthropometric and physical test results performed on alpine ski racers that were published in the scientific literature to build an athletic profile specific to the skier’s sex and level as well as to quantify the effect size of presented factors on alpine ski racing performance. METHODS: Four electronic databases were systematically searched using the following key words: alpine skiing physiology. The manual search was performed through the reference list of all suitable publications, the author’s personal collection and the proceedings of the International Congresses on Science and Skiing. SUMMARY OF RESULTS: The search and selection strategy permitted to gather data from 28 peer reviewed publications that was collected on a total of 1107 skiers coming from 11 different countries to build the athletic profile as well as 6 peer-reviewed publications that presented suitable correlations for the meta-analyse. Results of this study present the athletic profile, review the different testing protocols, present correlations between physiological factors and alpine ski racing performance and combine them to present the overall effect size of these factors on alpine ski racing performance. Findings show that men generally present higher tests result than woman, that higher level ski racers generally present higher test results than lower level ski racers and that age, weight, body fat % and lower limb power presented significant effects on alpine ski racing performance (-0,52 [95% IC : -0,73; -0,31] (p ˂ 0,0001); -0,57 [95% IC : -0,78; -0,36] (p˂0,0001); -0,25 [95% IC : -0,43; -0,07] (p=0,0055) and 0,8 [95% IC : 0,44; 1,17] (p˂ 0,0001) respectively). CONCLUSION: The present review should serve as guidelines for professionals working with alpine ski racers since some of the factors presented in the athletic profile have been shown to be related with performance. Further research should include more details on the testing protocols used, be directed towards female athletes, present results from groups of athletes of the same sex and clearly identified as established at a certain level and be directed on the effect of physiological factors on alpine ski racing performance. These measures could help support further theoretical investigations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".