MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306867419 · doi:10.52082/jssm.2022.555

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Strength and Power Training on Performance in Cross-Country Skiers

2022· review· en· W4306867419 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Stöggl, Hans‐Christer Holmberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Science and Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintStrength trainingPsychological interventionAnaerobic exerciseMedicineScopusPhysical therapyResistance trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify and evaluate current scientific literature concerning the effect of strength, power and speed training on relevant physiological and biomechanical characteristics and performance of competitive cross-country skiers (XCS), the databases Scopus and PubMed were searched systematically for original articles in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 599 studies retrieved, 12 met the inclusion criteria (i.e., assessment of outcome measures with relevance for XCS performance; involvement of traditional resistance training; application of external resistance to the body; intervention longer than 4 weeks; randomized controlled trial). The methodological rigor of each study was assessed using the PEDro scale, which were mostly poor-to-fair, with good methodological quality in only two articles. All of the strength/power/speed interventions improved 1RM (0.8-6.8 ES), but findings with respect to jump performance, ability to generate force rapidly and body composition were mixed. Interventions demonstrated moderate-to-high ES on XCS specific performance compared with control (mean ES = 0.56), but the pattern observed was not consistent. None of the interventions changed anaerobic capacity, while in most studies VO2max was either unchanged or increased. Work economy or efficiency was enhanced by most of the interventions. In conclusion, present research indicates that strength training improves general strength, with moderate effects on XCS performance, and inconclusive effects on work economy and VO2max/VO2peak. Strength training with high loads, explosive strength training, or sprint interval training seem to be promising tools for modern XCS training. Future investigations should include long-term (e.g., >6 months) strength training to allow sufficient time for increased strength and speed to influence actual XCS performance. Moreover, they should include both sexes, as well as upper- and lower-body muscles (trained separately and together) and employ free weights and core training. Methodological differences and limitations highlighted here may explain discrepancies in findings and should be taken into consideration in future research in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports Science and MedicineSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207