Key result
During 15 days of Live High-Train Low, cross-country skiers performing 80% low-intensity training improved roller-skiing performance by 2.9%, while Nordic-combined athletes performing 55% low-intensity training decreased performance by 4.1%.
Why the study?
Does a higher proportion of low-intensity training during Live High-Train Low improve performance and aerobic capacities in elite Nordic skiers?
Cohort (n=20)
No
Does a higher proportion of low-intensity training during Live High-Train Low improve performance and aerobic capacities in elite Nordic skiers?
Absolute Event Rate: -2.9% vs 4.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
During Live High-Train Low, a higher volume of low-intensity training improved specific performance and aerobic capacities in cross-country skiers, whereas a lower proportion of low-intensity training led to fatigue and decreased performance in Nordic-combined athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Higher low-intensity training proportion was associated with performance gains during LHTL in cross-country skiers; hypothesis-generating for elite Nordic athletes.
Schmitt et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Elite cross-country skiers and Nordic-combined athletes (n=20). Live High-Train Low with 80% low-intensity training vs. Live High-Train Low with 55% low-intensity training was evaluated on Change in field roller-skiing performance time (%) (p=<0.001). During 15 days of Live High-Train Low, cross-country skiers performing 80% low-intensity training improved roller-skiing performance by 2.9%, while Nordic-combined athletes performing 55% low-intensity training decreased performance by 4.1%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: