# Quantitative Comparative Analysis of Annual Training Volume and Intensity Distribution of Male Biathlon National Team and University Athletes Using Global Positioning Systems and Wearable Devices

## TL;DR

This study compares the annual training volume and intensity of male Korean biathlon national team and university athletes using GPS and wearable devices.

## Contribution

It provides empirical benchmarks for training progression in biathlon using objective monitoring tools.

## Key findings

- National team athletes trained longer and covered more distance than university athletes.
- National team athletes focused more on high-intensity and ski-specific training.
- University athletes had a more concentrated training structure during competition periods.

## Abstract

Background: Wearable sensors and global positioning systems (GPS) can enable objective monitoring of training loads in outdoor endurance sports. In biathlons, comparing training characteristics across developmental stages can help identify structural gaps and support evidence-informed progression within long-term athlete development (LTAD). This study aimed to quantitatively compare the annual training characteristics of Korean male biathlon national team (NT) and university (UNV) athletes. Methods: Annual physical training data (2022–2024) from NT (n = 6) and UNV (n = 6) athletes were collected using Catapult Vector S7 GPS devices and Polar H10 heart rate monitors. Training volume, intensity distribution (zones 1–3 based on %HRmax), modality (skiing vs. running), and periodization were compared using Mann–Whitney U tests with rank-biserial correlation (r_rb). Results: NT athletes accumulated a higher annual training time and distance than UNV athletes (812 vs. 606 h; 6359 vs. 4130 km; p = 0.002, r_rb = 1.000 for both). The NT athletes spent a lower proportion of time on low-intensity training and a higher proportion on mid and high intensities than UNV athletes (p ≤ 0.015). During high-intensity training, NT athletes maintained a higher proportion of ski-specific training, whereas UNV athletes relied more on running (skiing: 78.5% vs. 46.4%; running: 21.5% vs. 53.6%; both p < 0.001, r_rb = 1.000). The UNV group also showed a more concentrated structure during competition periods than NT athletes (COMP: 28.3% vs. 14.6%; p < 0.05). The absolute annual strength training time did not differ, but UNV athletes showed a higher strength ratio (23.3% vs. 16.8%; p < 0.001, r_rb = 1.000). Conclusion: UNV athletes exhibited a lower total volume, more low-intensity-skewed distribution, and reduced ski-specific exposure during high-intensity training compared with NT athletes. These observed structural gaps can provide empirical benchmarks that may help coaches plan stage-appropriate progression, and they illustrate the practical value of GPS- and wearable-based monitoring for identifying training divergences across developmental stages.