ArticlePeerJ2026
Comparative analysis of energy system contributions and physiological profiles in snowboard slopestyle and snowboard cross.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Slopestyle and snowboard cross are distinct snowboarding disciplines, each characterized by specific technical elements and differing competition dynamics. Examining the corresponding contributions of energy systems and physiological responses in these disciplines will yield essential foundational data to inform both physical conditioning programs and competitive strategies. This study compares the relative contributions of energy metabolism systems and physiological indices between the two disciplines. Methods: A crossover design was applied to eight elite male athletes registered with the Korea Ski & Snowboard Association; the athletes performed one simulated competition run each for slopestyle and snowboard cross. Oxygen consumption (VO Results: Compared with slopestyle, snowboard cross showed a significantly higher contribution from the glycolytic system (18.6% Conclusion: Due to repeated high-intensity movements, snowboard cross is associated with a higher physiological load, as reflected by greater reliance on anaerobic glycolysis and higher lactate concentration and peak heart rate, whereas slopestyle tends to emphasize the use of oxidative metabolism owing to the recovery intervals between obstacles. However, this oxidative contribution did not differ significantly between disciplines. These results highlight the importance of establishing customized fitness training and recovery strategies based on the competition characteristics of each discipline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.