Double-Poling vs G3 Skating — physiological & biomechanical differences in world-class skiers
Protocol & Participants
n=8 world-class male sprint skiers
Treadmill roller skiing in two techniques: double poling (DP; all propulsion from poling) and G3 skating (leg skating added to each double-poling movement)
A 5-min submaximal test at 16 km/h and an incremental test to exhaustion, both at a 5% incline
Cycle characteristics from video; respiratory parameters and blood lactate for the physiological response
Key Results
Submaximal (16 km/h): G3 skating used 16% longer cycles at a 16% lower cycle rate; oxygen uptake was INDEPENDENT of technique
Maximal: G3 skating gave 14% higher speed, 30% longer cycle length at a 16% lower cycle rate, and 11% higher peak oxygen uptake (all significant)
Authors' conclusion: adding leg push-offs (G3) raised maximal speed by about 14% through major increases in cycle length at slightly lower cycle rates and a higher aerobic energy delivery; at a given submaximal speed the oxygen cost was not affected by technique, although DP used a higher cycle rate
Practical Application
In 8 world-class sprint skiers on a 5% treadmill incline, G3 skating vs double poling: the same oxygen cost at 16 km/h submaximal, but at maximum 14% higher speed and 11% higher VO2peak through 30% longer cycles — adding the legs raises the ceiling, not the submaximal cost. For a masters skier: DP is not "cheaper" per km at the same speed; it caps peak speed on an incline
Master both techniques and switch by terrain and speed; on this 5% incline skating won at maximum. Which technique wins on the flat or at other gradients is not tested here. Not from this paper; the base's own practice
Double poling engages the whole aerobic system (VO2 at 16 km/h equalled skating) while loading the upper body. Inference, not tested: useful upper-body aerobic work
Specific technical work on each sub-technique pays off (efficiency, REF-541)
Limitations
n=8, world-class men; technique specificity in masters may differ
One incline (5%) and one submaximal speed; terrain-dependent conclusions are not tested
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B+: within-subject comparison, n=8
Content correction 2026-09-27
Added n=8, the protocol (5% incline, 16 km/h) and every number from the abstract (16%/16% cycles and VO2 independent of technique submaximally; 14% speed, 30% cycle length, 11% VO2peak at maximum)
"Different mechanical efficiency depending on terrain/speed", "sub-technique choice is an optimisation for gradient/snow/fatigue", "upper-body power especially important on the flat" -> not in the abstract; removed or labelled
Level B+ -> B (within-subject, n=8); Sport line "cycling, xc-skiing, strength" -> "xc-skiing"