Assessment of energy cost in three winter sports: Alpine skiing, snowboarding, and simulated cross-country skiing.
Simulated cross-country skiing has the highest energy cost among recreational skiing activities, with values exceeding 10 METs.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the slu-pp-332 (exercise mimetic) corpusSummary and findings
This study measured heart rate, oxygen uptake, and respiratory quotient during recreational Alpine skiing, snowboarding, and simulated cross-country skiing in young adults aged 17-25 years. The energy cost in METs was highest for simulated cross-country skiing, followed by Alpine skiing and snowboarding. No therapeutic claims are made.
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about the energy costs of recreational skiing, snowboarding, and cross-country skiing activities in young adults. Investigating the intensity of such activities for promoting skiing in public health and exercise contexts is needed. This study measured the heart rate (HR), oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2</sub>), and respiratory quotient (RQ) of recreational Alpine skiing, snowboarding, and simulated cross-country skiing (roller skiing) in young adults (17-25 y).<h4>Methods</h4>Three cross-sectional studies were performed. Alpine skiing (study 1, <i>n</i> = 13, 11 males, 2 females) and snowboarding (study 2, <i>n</i> = 13, all males) were performed on a ski slope rated intermediate in difficulty. Each skier completed one run and was guided by a researcher to maintain a common speed. Simulated cross-country skiing (study 3, <i>n</i> = 13, 8 males, 5 females) was performed while the roller skiing on a laboratory treadmill at 0% incline with increasing velocities per stage. Two trials were conducted: free skate (combined V1, V2) and the classic technique. HR was monitored by telemetry. VO<sub>2</sub> and RQ were measured by portable indirect calorimetry. METs were computed as VO<sub>2</sub> ml.kg<sup>-1.</sup>min<sup>-1</sup> divided by 3.5.<h4>Results</h4>The energy cost in METS for men and women combined was highest for simulated cross-country skiing (free skate, 10.57 ± 0.53; classic, 8.62 ± 0.75) than Alpine skiing (7.76 ± 1.18) and snowboarding (7.38 ± 2.55). RQ was highest for Alpine skiing (0.96 ± 0.10) than other skiing modes (on average, 0.87 to 0.88). Exercise HR was higher in the free skate (164.52 ± 13.58) and Alpine skiing (153.41 ± 20.54) than classic skiing (149.56 ± 12.68) and snowboarding (139.39 ± 41.96).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Recreational Alpine skiing, snowboarding, and simulated cross-country skiing are vigorous-intensity activities with an energy cost exceeding 6 METs in young adults. This study provides empirical, protocol-specific MET values for these activities, which validated and refined the existing estimates for these activities in the Adult Compendium of Physical Activities, offering an empirical basis for more precise energy expenditure assessment in recreational skiing.
Background
This paper addresses the energy costs associated with recreational skiing activities, which are not well-documented in existing literature. Prior studies have not provided empirical data on the intensity of these activities in young adults. Understanding the energy expenditure of these sports is important for promoting physical activity and public health.
Methods
The study consisted of three cross-sectional studies with a total of 39 participants (n=13 for each activity). Participants engaged in Alpine skiing, snowboarding, and simulated cross-country skiing on a treadmill. Heart rate was monitored, and oxygen uptake and respiratory quotient were measured using portable indirect calorimetry.
Results
The primary endpoint showed that simulated cross-country skiing (free skate) had an energy cost of 10.57 ± 0.53 METs. RQ was highest for Alpine skiing at 0.96 ± 0.10. Exercise heart rates were significantly higher during free skate and Alpine skiing compared to classic skiing and snowboarding.
Interpretation
The findings provide new empirical MET values for recreational skiing activities, which may refine existing estimates. While the results are statistically significant, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. The clinical significance of the energy costs observed may vary based on individual fitness levels and activity contexts.
Key findings
- Simulated cross-country skiing (free skate) had an energy cost of 10.57 ± 0.53 METs.
- Simulated cross-country skiing (classic) had an energy cost of 8.62 ± 0.75 METs.
- Alpine skiing had an energy cost of 7.76 ± 1.18 METs.
- Snowboarding had an energy cost of 7.38 ± 2.55 METs.
- Exercise heart rate was 164.52 ± 13.58 bpm during free skate.
- Exercise heart rate was 153.41 ± 20.54 bpm during Alpine skiing.
Limitations
- Small sample size (n=13 for each activity).
- Cross-sectional study design limits causal inferences.
- Participants were all young adults (17-25 years), limiting generalizability.
- No long-term follow-up to assess sustainability of activity levels.