Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field
Published on: May 26, 2020
Quantitative Analysis of Annual Training Volume and Periodization Patterns in Elite Female Cross-Country Skiers Using
Xiangzi Xiao1, Soyoun Moon2, Yonghwan Kim2,3
1Department of Education, Taylor's University, Jalan Taylor's, Subang Jaya 47500, Malaysia.
None:
Background: The Global Positioning System (GPS) and wearable monitoring technologies are increasingly applied in sport science to quantify training load; however, data from female cross-country skiers in nations with emerging competitive programs remain scarce. This case series covering the complete national team roster analyzed the complete annual training cycle of the Korean women's national cross-country skiing team (KCF) using GPS and heart rate-based wearable sensors. Methods: All three national team members were monitored throughout the 2022-2023 season (52 weeks), structured into General Preparation Period 1 (April-July), General Preparation Period 2 (August-November), and Competition Period (December-March). Individualized five-zone intensity thresholds were established through graded exercise testing on a roller ski treadmill with ventilatory threshold and blood lactate determination, independently assessed by two exercise physiologists (PhD level). Results: The total annual training volume was 667.72 h, comprising roller/on-snow skiing (54.0%), running (23.3%), and strength training (22.7%). The endurance-only intensity distribution demonstrated a polarized pattern (Zones 1-2: 91.5%). The total annual training distance reached 4673.30 km. The mean FIS points were 108.46 ± 38.60, and the mean VO2max was 60.17 ± 6.11 mL·kg-1·min-1. Conclusions: When benchmarked against world-class female (WCF) standards (800-950 h annually), the overall training volume was approximately 18-30% lower. The relative strength training allocation (22.7%) exceeded typical WCF values (10-15%). These observations should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size and cross-study comparison design, using published literature-based benchmarks.

