The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of Different Training Intensity Distributions Between Elite Cross-Country Skiers and Nordic-Combined Athletes During Live High-Train Low
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2018.00932 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laurent Schmitt, Sarah J. Willis, Nicolas Coulmy, Gregoire P. Millet |
| Abstract |
Purpose: To analyze the effects of different training strategies (i.e., mainly intensity distribution) during living high - training low (LHTL) between elite cross-country skiers and Nordic-combined athletes. Methods: 12 cross-country skiers (XC) (7 men, 5 women), and 8 male Nordic combined (NC) of the French national teams were monitored during 15 days of LHTL. The distribution of training at low-intensity (LIT), below the first ventilatory threshold (VT1), was 80% and 55% in XC and NC respectively. Daily, they filled a questionnaire of fatigue, and performed a heart rate variability (HRV) test. Prior (Pre) and immediately after (Post), athletes performed a treadmill incremental running test for determination of V ˙ O2max and V ˙ O2 at the second ventilatory threshold ( V ˙ O2V T2), a field roller-skiing test with blood lactate ([La-]) assessment. Results: The training volume was in XC and NC, respectively: at LIT: 45.9 ± 6.4 vs. 23.9 ± 2.8 h (p < 0.001), at moderate intensity: 1.9 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.4 h, (p < 0.001), at high intensity: 1.2 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 02 h (p = 0.05), in strength (and jump in NC): 7.1 ± 1.5 vs. 18.4 ± 2.7 h, (p < 0.001). Field roller-skiing performance was improved (-2.9 ± 1.6%, p < 0.001) in XC but decreased (4.1 ± 2.6%, p < 0.01) in NC. [La-] was unchanged (-4.1 ± 14.2%, p = 0.3) in XC but decreased (-27.0 ± 11.1%, p < 0.001) in NC. Changes in field roller-skiing performance and in [La-] were correlated (r = -0.77, p < 0.001). V ˙ O2max increased in both XC and NC (3.7 ± 4.2%, p = 0.01 vs. 3.7 ± 2.2%, p = 0.002) but V ˙ O2V T2 increased only in XC (7.3 ± 5.8%, p = 0.002). HRV analysis showed differences between XC and NC mainly in high spectral frequency in the supine position (HFSU). All NC skiers showed some signs of overreaching at Post. Conclusion: During LHTL, despite a higher training volume, XC improved specific performance and aerobic capacities, while NC did not. All NC skiers showed fatigue states. These findings suggest that a large amount of LIT with a moderate volume of strength and speed training is required during LHTL in endurance athletes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| France | 2 | 10% |
| Spain | 2 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
| Scientists | 7 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,147,536
of 23,680,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,176
of 14,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,089
of 330,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#71
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,680,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.