Validation of a maximal incremental skating test performed on a slide board: comparison with
treadmill skating
Post-print as accepted for publication.
Original Investigation
*Tatiane Piucco1, 2, Fernando Diefenthaeler1, 2, Rogério Soares1, Juan M. Murias1, Guillaume Y.
Millet1
1

Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2500 University Drive NW,
Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4

2

Sports Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. Campus
Universitário, Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil CEP: 88040-900
*Corresponding author:
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Faculty of Kinesiology – Human Performance Laboratory
2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
Phone: +1 (403) 220-6472 | Fax: 403-284-3553
Email: tatianepiucco@yahoo.com.br
Running head: Maximal skating test on slide board
Abstract word count 266
Word count 3491
Number of Tables 2
Number of Figures 4

1

Validation of a maximal incremental skating test performed on a slide board: comparison with
treadmill skating
Abstract
Purpose: the aim of this study was to investigate the criterion validity of a maximal incremental
skating test performed on a slide board (SB). Methods: Twelve sub-elite speed skaters performed
a maximal skating test on a treadmill and on a SB. Gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory
compensation point (RCP) and maximal variables were determined. Results: oxygen uptake (V̇O2)
(31.0 ± 3.2 and 31.4 ± 4.1 mL∙min-1∙kg-1), percentage of maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) (66.3 ±
4 and 67.7 ± 7.1%), HR (153 ± 14 and 150 ± 12 bpm), and ventilation (59.8 ± 11.8 and 57.0 ± 10.7
L∙min-1) at GET, and V̇O2 (42.5 ± 4.4 and 42.9 ± 4.8 mL∙min-1∙kg-1), percentage of V̇O2max (91.1 ±
3.3 and 92.4 ± 2.1%), heart rate (HR) (178 ± 9 and 178 ± 6 bpm), and ventilation (96.5 ± 19.2 and
92.1 ± 12.7 L∙min-1) at RCP were not different between skating on a treadmill and on a SB. V̇O2max
(46.7 ± 4.4 vs 46.4 ± 6.1 mL∙min-1∙kg-1) and maximal HR (195 ± 6 vs 196 ± 10 bpm) were not
significantly different and correlated (r = 0.80 and r = 0.87, respectively; p < 0.05) between the
treadmill and SB. V̇O2 at GET, RCP and V̇O2max obtained on a SB were correlated (r > 0.8) with
athletes’ best time on 1500 m. Conclusions: the incremental skating test on a SB was capable to
distinguish maximal (V̇O2 and HR) and submaximal (V̇O2, % V̇O2max, HR and ventilation)
parameters known to determine endurance performance. Therefore, the SB test can be considered
as a specific and practical alternative to evaluate speed skaters.
Keywords: speed skating; incremental test; test validity; intensity thresholds; maximal oxygen
uptake

2

Introduction
A maximal incremental exercise test is a well-established method for determining key
parameters of aerobic capacity in humans, such as gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory
compensation point (RCP), and maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max). Since indices of aerobic
capacity such as V̇O2max and physiological exercise intensity thresholds are associated with
performance during speed skating competitions1, a skating-specific incremental test is needed to
properly measure these parameters.
Speed skating is characterized by a unique crouched position and side-ways movement of
the body that determine the physiological demands. The low posture adopted during speed skating
and the long isometric phase of each stroke, followed by concentric phase, results in restriction of
blood flow to the lower limbs and high intramuscular forces2,3. These specific characteristics are
associated with a lower V̇O2max and higher maximal heart rate (HRmax) during skating when
compared with running or cycling4,5,6. Despite the lack of specificity, cycle ergometer or treadmill
running tests are widely used in speed skating7 for monitoring physiological changes and
establishing training intensities.
Optimal training adaptations can be obtained from training loads specifically related to the
activity itself, due to the specific physiological and neuromuscular demands8. As a result,
performance evaluations for exercise prescription must be movement specific, valid and reliable 9.
Nobes et al.10 found no difference in V̇O2max achieved during a maximal skating protocol on
treadmill and on ice, suggesting that skating treadmill could be of great value to evaluate speed
skaters. However, skating treadmills are very expensive and the athletes need to be highly-skilled
and familiar with skating on a treadmill to be able to perform maximally. All these limitations
challenge the use of skating treadmills for optimizing training programs through periodic
laboratory evaluation.
Skating protocols performed on ice track are even more complicated to perform, as testing
conditions are more difficult to control. The necessity of having long periods of test interruptions
to collect blood samples may increase data variability which would affect the reliability of the
results, limiting the application of incremental cardiorespiratory tests on track4,5 Moreover, at
maximal intensity, it may become biomechanically or technically difficult to skate fast enough to
fully challenge the cardiovascular system11.
As an alternative, some researchers investigated physiological responses obtained during
low walking on an oversized motor-driven treadmill, which simulated the posture used in speed
skating12. Another study investigated physiological responses during a maximal skating test on a
slide board13. However, the aforementioned studies did not determine the validity of those
protocols compared with a real skating activity. Given the importance of assessing different
parameters of aerobic function to monitor speed skaters, and considering the technical and costrelated limitations of other testing modalities, the use of a slide board based incremental test to
determine endurance performance in a more accessible, valid and laboratory controlled way is
warranted.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the validity of submaximal and maximal
aerobic indices related to endurance performance during an incremental test performed on slide
board, compared to a similar skating protocol on treadmill. The main hypothesis was that skating
on the slide board would elicit similar submaximal and maximal cardiorespiratory responses
compared to skating on the treadmill.
Methods
3

Participants
Twelve (4 male and 8 female) long-track speed skaters (distances between 500 and 5000
m) voluntarily participated in this study. The athlete’s mean age, body mass, and height were 18.0
± 0.9 years, 65.0 ± 6.8 kg, and 1.73 ± 8.80 m, respectively. The speed skaters participated in a
systematic training program with a volume of 2 hours/day, 5 days per week, for at least 3 years.
According to indicators based on current and past training data14, this group of individuals fit within
the “trained” category and performance level 4. The tests were performed during the competitive
season. The skaters’ best time average for the 1500 m distance was 2.13 ± 0.14 min. The study was
conducted in accordance with ethical standards of the local University Human Research Ethics
Committee (REB15-2537), and all participants signed an informed consent form with detailed
description about the study protocol.
Design

Participants were instructed to refrain from heavy exercise (any physical activity that was
beyond their activities of daily living or a recovery-like exercise session) in the 24 h before each
test, maintain a similar diet, and to abstain from the ingestion of stimulants (i.e., caffeine, nicotine)
or alcohol. Each subject performed two incremental skating tests to fatigue, separated by two to
four days. One test was performed on a treadmill and the other on an instrumented slide board. All
participants were familiarized with the treadmill skating protocol, using their own inline skates, at
least twice, for a minimum of 30 min 2 to 5 days before the data collection. Participants were
familiar with the slide board skating movement as they use it for training.
Methodology
A maximal inline skating protocol was performed on an oversized, motor driven treadmill (2.5
× 3.5 m) (Athletic Republic, Salt Lake City, UT). During the test the athletes wore a safety harness
that was attached to an overhead pulley as a precaution to prevent from a potential fall. After 3 min
of baseline skating at 8 km·h-1, the treadmill skating protocol started at 12 km·h-1, and increased
by 2 km·h-1 every minute until volitional exhaustion despite strong verbal encouragement. We
opted to not to change the treadmill grade in order to provide a condition as close as possible to
real skating and slide board skating exercises. Because our subjects were well-trained skaters
familiar with treadmill skating, they did not have any technical difficulties to skate at high
velocities. Therefore, maximum effort was attained and the athletes stopped due to exhaustion, not
technical limitations.
A slide board equipped with sensors and connected to custom made software was used for a
maximal incremental test, as described elsewhere13. Briefly, each athlete skated on a slide board of
polyethylene surface (2.0 × 0.6 × 0.2 m) wearing a pair of nylon socks over their shoes while
skating. Optical sensors were placed at either extremity of the slide board to determine the athletes’
instantaneous skating cadence and a software program was developed to help the athlete keep the
pace by providing visual and auditory feedback (Figure 1). After 3 min of baseline skating at 15
push-offs per minute (ppm), the protocol started with a cadence of 30 ppm, and increased by 3 ppm
every minute until volitional exhaustion occurred despite strong verbal encouragement (Figure 2).
The reliability of this protocol has been previously determined (ICC > 0.9 and typical error of
measure expressed as a coefficient of variation < 3.5%)15.
Throughout each exercise trial pulmonary ventilation (V̇E), respiratory exchange ratio (RER),
carbon dioxide production (V̇CO2) and oxygen consumption (V̇O2) were measured breath-bybreath using a portable gas analyzer (K4b2 Cosmed®, Rome, Italy), calibrated according to
4

manufacturer’s instructions prior to each test. V̇O2max was considered to be the highest averaged
value over a 15-second period during the last stage of the test. HR was collected using
radiotelemetry (SP0180 Polar Transmitter; Polar Electro Inc., Kempele, Finland). Blood samples
from the fingertip were collected at the end of each test, and at minute one, three and five following
the conclusion of the test, to assess peak of blood lactate concentration ([La]peak). The Lactate Scout
(SensLab GmbH, Leipzig, Germany) analyser was used and calibrated according to the
manufacturer’s recommendations. The gas exchange threshold (GET) and the respiratory
compensation point (RCP) were identified by two blinded experts. If the two reviewers agree
within discrepancy of no more than 200 mL∙min-1 then the average will result in an error no larger
than 100 mL∙min-1, which would be within the lowest detectable noise in the V̇O2 data16. Only
when a discrepancy was larger than 200 mL∙min-1 and the potential error was unacceptable, a third
reviewer was involved to discuss the thresholds. GET was determined by visual inspection as the
V̇O2 at which V̇CO2 began to increase out of proportion in relation to V̇O2, with a systematic rise
in V̇E-to-V̇O2 relation and end-tidal partial pressure of O2 (PO2) whereas the ventilatory equivalent
of V̇CO2 (V̇E/V̇CO2) and end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) is stable17. RCP was determined
as the point where end-tidal PCO2 began to fall after a period of isocapnic buffering18. This point
was confirmed by examining V̇E/V̇CO2 plotted against V̇O2 and by identifying the second
breakpoint in the V̇E-to-V̇O2 relation. Maximal cadence at the slide board (CADmax) was defined
as the maximal number of push-offs per minute reached during the slide board test. If the final
stage was not completed, the CADmax was calculated according to the following equation adapted
from Kuipers et al.19: CADmax = CADf + t/s × 3, where CADf is the cadence of the final stage
completed, t the uncompleted stage time (in s), s the stage duration (= 60 s) and 3 the cadence
increment per stage. The same equation was used to calculate maximal speed at the end of the
treadmill skating test, using speed values instead of cadence and 2 (increments of 2 km·h-1) instead
of 3.
Statistical Analysis
Data are presented as means ± SD. Normality of the data was assessed using the ShapiroWilk test. Two-tailed pairwise t-tests were performed to compare variables obtained from a
maximal incremental test performed on a skating treadmill with variables obtained from a maximal
incremental test performed on a slide board. Effect sizes (ES) of each pair of comparisons were
categorized as small (ES < 0.20), moderate (ES > 0.20 - 0.8) or large effects (ES > 0.8)20. Pearson
correlation coefficients between the variables obtained from the treadmill and slide board protocols
and between the skaters’ best time on 1500 m distance on ice and GET, RCP and V̇O2max. The
following criteria were adopted for interpreting the magnitude of correlation between variables:
<0.10, trivial; 0.11–0.30, small; 0.31–0.50, moderate; 0.51–0.70, large; 0.71–0.90, very large; and
0.91–1.00, almost perfect21. A level of magnitude above very large is warranted for correlations,
because a value of 0.9 is described as a threshold for validity21. Typical error of measurement,
expressed as absolute values and as coefficient of variation (TEMCV%), were determined using the
techniques described by Hopkins21. Statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism
(GraphPad Prism Software Inc. v. 5.0, San Diego, CA) and Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS Inc. v.17.0, Chicago, IL). The statistical significance was accepted when p<0.05.
Results

Maximal physiological comparisons indices and correlation are reported in table 1. No
statistically significant differences were found for V̇O2max and HRmax measured when skating on a
treadmill versus skating on a slide board. [La]peak, RERmax and VEmax were significantly higher
5

when skating on a treadmill. Significant correlations were obtained for V̇O2max (r = 0.94), HRmax (r
= 0.87) and V̇Emax (r = 0.87) (Table 1).
Maximal cadence (60 ± 4.8 ppm) and maximal speed (30.7 ± 4.1 km·h-1) values were
significantly correlated (r = 0.77).
Table 2 depicts physiological responses associated to the GET and RCP during the maximal
incremental skating tests on a treadmill and on a slide board. The V̇O2, percentage of V̇O2max
(%V̇O2max), HR, and V̇E values associated with GET and RCP were not significant different
between the skating on a treadmill and on a slide board. RER values at GET and RCP were
significantly smaller on a slide board skating. Most of the variables at GET and RCP obtained on
a treadmill and on a slide board skating were significantly correlated, except %V̇O2max at RCP and
RER at GET and RCP intensities.
Very large correlation was found for V̇O2max attained during treadmill and slide board
skating (Figure 3), and very similar V̇O2 responses were obtained throughout the two exercise
modalities (Figure 4). Very large correlations were found between the athletes’ personal best time
on 1500 m distance (2.13 ± 0.14 min) and V̇O2max in L∙min-1 (r = 0.85; 0.91), GET (r = 0.81; 0,80)
and RCP (r = 0.88; 0,89) found during skating on a treadmill and on a slide board, respectively.
Discussion
This study aimed to compare physiological responses during a maximal incremental skating
test on a treadmill and on a slide board. The main finding was that the V̇O2max and V̇O2 associated
with GET and RCP were not statistically different and significantly correlated between both
exercise modalities, suggesting that skating on a slide board is a good representation of the
physiological responses obtained during treadmill skating.
To deliver high power outputs, both aerobic and anaerobic resources are crucial, although
their contribution varies over the different distances22. The averaged V̇O2max values found on a
slide board were similar and correlated to those obtained on a skating treadmill (Table 1). These
results are similar to the V̇O2max found during two different slide board skating protocols performed
by speed skaters of similar age and training volume13. It is known that V̇O2max values reported
during skating are around 7-10% lower than those during cycling, likely due to the physiological
consequences of the skating position2,3,7. Consequently, the relatively low V̇O2max values reported
in the present study are not surprising, considering the low V̇O2max values previously reported in
the literature for elite speed skaters tested on ice (53.9 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 for males) and on a cycle
ergometer (57.2–62.0 and 52.2–54.9 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 for males and females, respectively)1,6,8.
Moreover, the skaters evaluated in the present study were not elite athletes, mainly females (8/12)
and most of them short distance specialists (under 3000 m).
The average V̇O2 responses during the two protocols were virtually the same (Figure 4A and
B), indicating a close pattern of physiological demand. A relatively large plateau in V̇O2 versus
workload relationship was observed for most of the tests. Foster et al.23 pointed out to a remarkable
ability of the skaters to rapidly attain and sustain maximal level of V̇O2 for the duration of the time
trial distance. The high anaerobic capacity of speed skaters, one of the highest recorded by any
group of athletes24, could explain the evident V̇O2 leveling off on the last stages of the incremental
skating protocols. However, since anaerobic capacity was not specifically measured during the
skating protocols, this speculation still needs to be addressed.
The correlation found between V̇O2max expressed in L∙min-1 values attained during skating
on a slide board and on a treadmill (r=0.94) was ‘almost perfect’ according to Hopkins21 criteria
(Figure 3). A level of magnitude above very large (0.90) is warranted for concurrent validity
6

correlations21. There are no published studies examining the validity of a maximal incremental
skating test on a slide board. Leone et al25 and Petrella et al26 found correlations of 0.69 – 0.76
when comparing V̇O2max during ice hockey aerobic field tests with similar running field tests as the
criterion measure. The lower correlations found by the authors can be related to the different
exercise modality adopted as a criterion test. The difference in correlation between V̇O2max
expressed in L∙min-1 and mL∙kg-1∙min-1 can be related to difference in data homogeneity. As the
homogeneity of the group increases, the variance decreases and the magnitude of the correlation
coefficient tends to decrease. Therefore, since V̇O2max group values are less heterogeneous when
expressed in mL∙kg-1∙min-1, this could partially explain the lower correlation for this index (r =
0.84).
In addition to the similar V̇O2 responses and very large correlation observed for V̇O2max
attained when skating on a treadmill and on a slide board, these two conditions resulted in a low
between test variability of 5%. This value is similar to the one reported using supramaximal
verification bouts versus graded maximal test to elicit V̇O2max (4.3%) reported by Hawkins et al.27.
Thus, the slide board protocol seems to provide valid and consistent values of V̇O2max when
considering account individual subject variations.
Very large correlations (r > 0.80) were found between the athletes’ best time of the season in
1500 m distance and the GET (r = 0.81), RCP (r = 0.89) and V̇O2max (r = 0.91) measured on the
slide board further support the validity of those indices to predict and evaluate speed skating
performance on ice. This contrasts with the lack of relationship shown between aerobic and
anaerobic indices obtained during a cycling test and skating performance22, supporting the notion
that cycling tests are not ideal to evaluate seasonal changes in performance of highly trained skating
athletes. Yet one must acknowledge that the V̇O2max was more homogeneous in van Ingen Schenau
et al. 22.
Despite the similarities found between treadmill and slide board skating, V̇Emax, RERmax and
[La]peak were significantly smaller during the slide board test and ES were moderate to large,
pointing out for meaningful differences (Table 1). These findings were unexpected and might be
related to slight differences in body posture adopted on the slide board, since at smaller knee and/or
hip angles the ventilatory response can be altered because of mechanical limitations during
skating12, 28. De Boer et al.28 found greater RER and V̇E maximal values during inline compared to
on ice maximal skating tests, with no significant differences in V̇O2max, and a more upright posture
during inline skating. Differences in RER could be related to decreased V̇E, as suggested by Rundell
and Pripstein12, or could be linked to a decreased [La]peak possibly caused by a more pronounced
blood flow occlusion and the associated decrease in lactate efflux29.
V̇O2 values at GET and RCP were similar and well correlated (Table 2) in both conditions,
and represented ~ 67 and ~ 92% of V̇O2max obtained during the skating tests. Piucco et al.13 reported
similar %V̇O2 values at the second ventilatory threshold, i.e. RCP, during two different skating
protocols on slide board, when investigating skaters with similar profile. However, these values
are higher than those reported for GET (61%) and RCP (80%) during cycling16. Boone et al.30
found RCP intensities at ~ 87% of VO2max during cycling, this value being influenced by the aerobic
fitness level i.e. trained individuals showing greater percent RCP. Therefore, a high endurance
capacity of the speed skaters1,7, combined with the idea that true maximal values might not have
been achieved due to the blood flow restriction, could result the larger percent RCP associated to
V̇O2max observed in this study. It is important to note that this is the first study investigating GET
and RCP during a specific skating protocol. An effective evaluation of sport performance needs to
reproduce the physiological responses during exercise, which are dependent on the characteristics
of the movement pattern, such as posture, muscle recruitment and mode of contraction utilized
7

during exercise31, 32. The unique crouched skating technique (i.e. small knee- and trunk angle) leads
to an increase deoxygenation of the working muscles. Due to the reduced blood flow associated
with the crouched skating posture, an increased recruitment of the fast-twitch fibres may occur33.
Consequently, although commonly used7, 22, cycling tests do not offer optimal conditions to
evaluate physiological variables associated with performance in speed skating. Therefore, the
similar values for skating intensity threshold observed during treadmill skating and slide board
strengthens the validity of skating on a slide board as a good model to represent the physiological
profile of skating.
The main limitation of the slide board protocol is that it cannot replicate the effects of
cornering. Technical aspects of cornering seem to have an impact on oxygenation, affecting
processes related to the regulation of exercise intensity such as fatigue and recovery34. Also,
aerodynamics, drafting effects, and optic flow perception are not important in treadmill and slide
board tests, while they are important determinants of skating performance33. Keeping the skating
treadmill on a level grade during the maximal treadmill skating test is another potential limitation.
Skating on a level grade can be technically too difficult and might lead to the test finishing without
exerting the highest levels of power due to lack of resistance and small friction. This might be
especially true for recreational skaters, hockey players, cross-country skaters and amateur speed
skaters. In this case, changing the treadmill inclination or using additional methods to increase
skating resistance during the test is recommended. Further comparison between slide board test
and field test results are necessary to strengthen the validity of the results. However, the strong
correlations found between the maximal and submaximal V̇O2 data during skating on a slide board
and skating performance on ice suggest that actual determinants of performance can be assessed
using the slide board test.
Practical Applications
The V̇O2, HR and V̇E profile of skating on a slide board is similar to skating on a treadmill.
Also, outcomes of the skating test on a slide board skating relate to actual skating performance.
Therefore, speed skating coaches can use the slide board test as a valid and specific method to
establish maximal physiological indices and exercise intensity boundaries. The accessibility of the
slide board makes this tool of interest when considering repetitive testing in different locations (i.e.
training camps) during the season.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the results of the present study support the hypothesis that skating on a slide
board mimics some important physiological responses obtained during treadmill skating. The slide
board test, a simple and affordable approach in terms of accessibility and cost, was capable to
appropriately assess maximal and submaximal parameters that determine endurance performance,
such as V̇O2max and aerobic/anaerobic intensity thresholds during skating. The slide board test is
valid (correlation coefficients above 0.9) to determine V̇O2max and V̇O2 at the thresholds. However,
caution should be taken when using HR and blood lactate data from slide board incremental test
for training prescription. Maximal and submaximal aerobic indices during slide board skating test
were correlated with skating performance on ice (i.e., best time on 1500 m skating distance). Thus,
the slide board test is a specific and practical test that can be used to evaluate speed skating
performance, prescribe exercise training intensities and monitor adaptations due to training
program.
8

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funding support of National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
(CAPES), Brazil, and the athletes for participating in this study.

9

References
1. De Koning JJ, Bakker FC, de Groot G, et al. Longitudinal development of young talented
speed skaters: physiological and anthropometric aspects. J Appl Physiol. 1994;77:23112317.
2. Foster C, Rundell KW, Snyder AC, et al. Evidence for restricted muscle blood flow during
speed skating. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:1433-1440.
3. Rundell KW. Compromised oxygen uptake in speed skaters during treadmill in-line
skating. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28:120-127.
4. Snyder AC, O'Hagan KP, Clifford PS, et al. Exercise responses to in-line skating:
comparisons to running and cycling. Int J Sports Med. 1993;14(1):38-42.
5. Krieg A, Meyer T, Clas S, et al. Characteristics of inline speed skating - Incremental tests
and effect of drafting. Int J Sports Med. 1996;27(10):818-823.
6. Kandou TWA, Houtman ILD, Bol EVD, et al. Comparison of physiology and
biomechanics of speed skating with cycling and with skateboard exercise. Can J Sport Sci.
1987;12:31-36.
7. Foster C, Thompson NN, Synder AC. Ergometric studies with speed skaters: evolution of
laboratory methods. J Strength Cond Res. 1993;7:193-200.
8. De Boer RW, Ettema GJ, Faessen BG, et al. Specific characteristics of speed skating:
implications for summer training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987;19(5):504–510.
9. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive Statistics for Studies in
Sports. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–12.
10. Nobes KJ, Montgomery DL, Pearsall DJ, et al. A comparison of skating economy on-ice
and on the skating treadmill. Can J Appl Physiol. 2003;28(1):1-11.
11. Hoffman MD, Jones GM, Bota B, et al. Inline skating: physiological responses and
comparison with roller skiing. Int J Sports Med. 1992;13(2): 137-44.
12. Rundell KW, Pripstein LP. Physiological responses of speed skaters to treadmill low
walking and cycle ergometry. Int J Sports Med. 1995;16(5):304-308.
13. Piucco T, O'Connell J, Stefanyshyn D, et al. Incremental testing design on slide board for
speed skaters: comparison between two different protocols. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;
30(11):3116-3121.
14. De Pauw, Roelands B, Cheung SS, et al. Guidelines to classify subject groups in sportscience research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013;8(2):111-122.
15. Piucco T, dos Santos SG, de Lucas RD, et al. A novel incremental slide board test for
speed skaters: Reliability analysis and comparison with a cycling test. Apunts Med Esport.
2015;50(186):57-63
16. Keir DA, Fontana FY, Robertson TC, et al. Exercise Intensity Thresholds: Identifying the
Boundaries of Sustainable Performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(9):1932–1940.
17. Beaver WL, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ. A new method for detecting anaerobic threshold by
gas exchange. J Appl Physiol. 1985;60(6):2020-2027.
18. Whipp BJ, Davis JA, Wasserman K. Ventilatory control of the fisocapnic buffering region
in rapidly-incremental exercise. Respir Physiol. 1989;76(3):357–67.
19. Kuipers H, Verstappen FTJ, Geurten P, et al. Variability of aerobic performance in
laboratory and its physiologic correlates. Int J Sports Med. 1985;6(4):197-201.
20. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
10

21. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in
sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3-13.
22. van Ingen Schenau GJ, Bakker FC, de Groot G, et al. Supramaximal cycle tests do not
detect seasonal progression in performance in groups of elite speed skaters. Eur Appl
Physiol. 1992;64:119-134.
23. Foster C, Green MA, Snyder AC, et al. Physiological responses during simulated
competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(7):877-882.
24. Foster C, De Koning JJ, Hettinga F, et al. Pattern of energy expenditure during simulated
competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(5):826–831.
25. Leone M, Léger LA, Larivière G, et al. An on ice aerobic maximal multistage shuttle skate
test for elite adolescent hockey players. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28:1-6.
26. Petrella NJ, Montelpare WJ, Nystrom M, et al. Validation of the FAST skating protocol to
predict aerobic power in ice hockey players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007;32(4):693700.
27. Hawkins MN, Raven PB , Snell PG, et al. Maximal oxygen uptake as a parametric
measure of cardiorespiratory capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:103-107.
28. De Boer RW, Vos E, Hutter W, et al. Physiological and biomechanical comparison of
roller skating and speed skating on ice. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1987;56(5):562-569.
29. Gladden LB. Muscle as a consumer of lactate. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(4):764–771.
30. Boone J, Barstow TJ, Celie B, et al. Oxygenation, muscle activation and pulmonary VO2
to incremental ramp exercise: influence of aerobic fitness. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.
2016;41(1):55-62.
31. Basset FA, Boulay MR. Specificity of treadmill and cycle ergometer tests in triathletes,
runners and cyclists. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000;81(3):214-221.
32. Duchateau J, Semmler JG, Enoka RM. Training adaptations in the behavior of human
motor units. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101:1766–1775.
33. Konings MJ, Elferink-Gemser MT, Stoter IK, et al. Performance characteristics of longtrack speed skaters: A literature review. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):505-516.
34. Hettinga FJ, Konings MJ, Cooper CE. Differences in muscle oxygenation, perceived
fatigue and recovery between long-track and short-track speed skating. Front Physiol.
2016;7:619.

11

Table 1 - The mean ± standard deviation values, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients
(r), effect size (ES) and the relative typical error of measured (TEMCV%) between maximal
variables obtained when skating on a treadmill skating and on a slide board.
Treadmill
Slide board
r
ES
TEM CV%
b
̇VO2max (L∙min-1)
3.04 ± 0.54
3.05 ± 0.65
0.94
0.002
5.3
V̇O2max(mL∙kg-1∙min-1)
46.7 ± 4.4
46.4 ± 6.1
0.80 b
0.05
5.5
b
HRmax (bpm)
195 ± 6
196 ± 10
0.87
0.05
2.0
RERmax
1.3 ± 0.1
1.2 ± 0.1 a
0.30
1.65
5.1
a
b
̇VEmax (L∙min-1)
148.5 ± 28.3 138.7 ± 22.4
0.87
0.41
6.6
[La]peak (mmol∙L-1)
12.2 ± 2.3
9.3 ± 2.3a
0.11
1.28
20.3
a - Significant difference (p < 0.05); b - Significant correlation (p < 0.05). V̇O2max = maximal
oxygen uptake; HRmax = maximal heart hate; RERmax = maximal respiratory exchange ratio; V̇Emax
= maximal ventilation; [La]peak = peak blood lactate concentration.

12

Table 2 - The mean ± standard deviation values, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients
(r), effect size (ES) and the relative typical error of measured (TEMCV%) between submaximal
variables (GET and RCP) obtained when skating on a treadmill and on a slide board .
ES
GET
Treadmill
Slide board
r
TEMCV%
b
̇VO2 (L∙min-1)
2.02 ± 0.37
2.04 ± 0.36
0.91
0.06
5.5
̇VO2 (mL∙kg30.9 ± 3.2
31.4 ± 4.1
0.75 b
0.12
6.1
1
∙min-1)
% V̇O2max
66.3 ± 4
67.7 ± 7.1
0.62 b
0.24
6.5
b
HR (bpm)
153 ± 14
150 ± 12
0.90
0.29
3.1
a
RER
0.92 ± 0.06
0.88± 0.04
0.50
0.78
7.7
b
̇VE (L∙min-1)
59.8 ± 11.8
57.0 ± 10.7
0.85
0.25
7.4
RCP
Treadmill
Slide board
r
ES
TEMCV%
b
̇VO2 (L∙min-1)
2.78 ± 0.53
2.81 ± 0.56
0.97
0.05
3.0
V̇O2 (mL∙kg42.5 ± 4.4
42.9 ± 4.8
0.92 b
0.09
3.0
1
∙min-1)
% V̇O2max
91.1 ± 3.3
92.4 ± 2.1
0.37
0.50
3.3
b
HR (bpm)
178 ± 9
178 ± 6
0.85
0.04
2.0
RER
1.05 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.05a
0.50
0.92
4.3
-1
b
V̇E (L∙min )
96.5 ± 19.0
92.1 ± 12.7
0.90
0.27
7.2
a - Significant difference (p < 0.05); b - Significant correlation (p < 0.05). V̇O2 = oxygen uptake;
% V̇O2max = percentage of V̇O2max; HR= heart hate; RER = respiratory exchange ratio; V̇E =
ventilation. GET = gas exchange threshold; RCP = respiratory compensation point.

13

Figure 1. Slide board set up. 1- Photo emitter; 2- Photo receptor.

Figure 2. Incremental skating protocol to exhaustion on a treadmill (A) and on a slide board (B).
Increase in cadence on the slide board is represented by numbers of push-offs per minute (ppm).

Figure 3. Correlation (95% CI) between V̇O2max attained on a treadmill and on a slide board.

Figure 4. Average V̇O2 response during skating on a treadmill (panel A) and on a slide board
(panel B).

14

15