Int J Sports Med 1992; 13(2): 137-144
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1021245
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

In-Line Skating: Physiological Responses and Comparison with Roller Skiing

M. D. Hoffman, G. M. Jones, B. Bota, M. Mandli, P. S. Clifford
  • Sports Performance and Technology Laboratory, Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Anesthesiology and Physiology, The Medical College of Wisconsin and VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53295
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 March 2008 (online)


The use of in-line skates has become popular in recent years for recreational and conditioning purposes. This investigation evaluated the physiological responses of ten subjects during in-line skating on a flat track with three different in-line skating techniques. The double pole technique demonstrated the greatest economy with oxygen up-take requirements that were approximately 12% lower (p < 0.05) than conventional skating (without poles) or the VI skate technique. Across the investigated velocity spectrum of 14.6 to 18.0 km·h-1, individuals with an average fitness level of 40 ml·kg-1·min-1 will achieve exercise in-tensities of 68-90% of maximum oxygen uptake using the conventional skating and V1 skate techniques on flat terrain. These exercise intensities are appropriate for cardiorespiratory training. However, high fit individuals who are attempting to elicit a cardiorespiratory training effect using in-line skates with rolling resistances similar to those tested may need to perform uphill interval work or skate at higher velocities which may be technically difficult and may be unsafe in some training environments. Comparison of the present data with previously published data on roller skiing demonstrates that differences in physiological responses for the two modes of exercise are the result of differences in rolling resistances between the devices. Measurements of rolling resistance and comparison of the oxygen uptake requirements for double poling on both devices allow for the mechanical efficiency to be estimated at approximately 18%) for this mode of locomotion.