Metabolic Cost of Diagonal Striding and Double Poling in Cross Country Classic Skiing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have compared physiological demands of two classic skiing techniques:double poling and diagonal striding. In diagonal striding, the skis propel theskier by alternating kick and glide phases between the left and right ski. Each skikicks simultaneously with a push from the opposite pole. In double poling, the skierplants and pushes through with both poles simultaneously while the skis glide anddo not contribute to impulse generation. Previous studies found that double polingwas more economical by 10-26% than striding on flat and low grade surfaces at severalspeeds1,2,3. However, if the oxygen consumption in double poling is lower at all givenspeeds, then why do skiers prefer to stride at slow speeds? The purpose of this studywas to measure metabolic factors for the striding and double poling techniques inorder to explain why skiers choose to stride under some conditions.Nine elite male skiers performed a test on a rollerski treadmill. The treadmill wasset to a 4% uphill grade and the speed was increased from 6km/h to 15km/h byincrements of 3km/h. At each speed, the skier reached metabolic steady state for boththe striding and double poling techniques. During the test, oxygen consumption andthe respiratory exchange ratio (RER=CO2 produced/O2 consumed) were measuredcontinuously.The average oxygen cost for double poling was found to be 10% lower comparedto striding across all speeds. However, for all but the highest speed, the RER valuesfor double poling were 12% higher. RER indicates the intensity to which the recruitedmuscle mass is working. Therefore, these results suggest that double poling, althoughmore economical, is likely more demanding on the recruited musculature and mightlead to fast local fatigue. These results explain why double poling is not the preferredtechnique at slower speeds.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".