Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

General characteristics of athletes included in the study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 1.

Training distribution methods.

Total training time was divided into training forms (endurance, sprint and strength). Endurance time and frequency were further distributed into 5 intensity zones in line with table 2. Zones 1–2 are LIT and zones 3–5 are HIT. Endurance and sprint time together were divided into activity forms. Ski and roller ski were classified as specific, and running, cycling or other as non-specific activity forms.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 2.

The 5-zone, 3-zone, and binary intensity scales used in the current study.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Training phases in annual cycle, including peaking phases.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 2.

Annual organization of specific and non-specific activity forms.

Endurance and sprint training time (h) distributed into specific (ski and roller ski) and non-specific (running, cycling and other) activity forms during each month and divided in phases. # Difference in specific training time vs. GP (P<.01).

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Annual training characteristics.

A: Total training time (h) distributed into endurance training (zones 1–5), strength and sprint (bars, y-axis), and total training frequency (sessions) (line, z-axis) during each month and divided into phases. B: HIT frequency (sessions) distributed into zones 3, 4 and 5 (bars, y-axis) during each month and divided in phases. There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) in total HIT sessions and zones 3, 4 and 5 respectively across the GP, SP and CP. Pairwise post-hoc tests showed: * Difference in total HIT sessions across phases (P<.01). # Difference between zone 5 sessions vs. GP (P<.01).

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 4.

Weekly training patterns during different phases throughout the season.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 4.

Individual peaking characteristics.

Individual (lines) and average (dotted bold line) total weekly training volume during GP, and the last 6 weeks prior to championship title.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Figure 5.

Peaking characteristics.

A: Weekly training time (h) distributed into endurance training (zones 1–5), strength and sprints (bars, y-axis), and total training frequency (sessions) (line, z-axis) during GP, and during the last 6 weeks prior championship title. B: HIT frequency (sessions) distributed into zones 3, 4 and 5 (bars, y-axis) during GP, and during the last 6 weeks prior to championship title. There was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) in total HIT sessions and zones 3 and 5 respectively across GP, pre-peaking phase and peaking phase. Pairwise post-hoc tests showed: * Difference in total HIT sessions across phases (P<.01). There were no statistically significant differences in zones 3, 4 or 5 across phases.

More »

Figure 5 Expand

Figure 6.

Taper comparison.

Schematic representation of the actual taper observed in current study compared to recommended volume reduction. Adapted from Mujika & Padilla [4].

More »

Figure 6 Expand

Figure 7.

Peaking phase.

Number of athletes (of 11) who performed HIT sessions (line) and number of athletes who took a rest day from training (bars) during the final 14 days prior to peak performance.

More »

Figure 7 Expand