For fitness, if rollerskiing only gets a 6, and XC skiing gets a 7,
what on earth gets a 10???

I'd thought only a couple of sports even came close to XC skiing in
all-round fitness and strength demands!

For the record, I had nothing to do with the ratings, but may have put
a positive spin on the danger aspect of rollerskiing.




--- In nordicscotland@..., "Horsley, Dr David"
<d.horsley@...> wrote:
>
> Nope not at all. Compare it to the ratings for nordic skiing in the same
> article:
>
> Roller skiing
> Thrill rating 4/10
>
> Danger rating 2/10
>
> Fitness rating 6/10
>
> Nordic skiing
>
> Thrill rating 4/10
>
> Danger rating 4/10
>
> Fitness rating 7/10
>
>
>
> I'd rate the danger of roller skiing over cross country at a much higher
> level - falling on tarmac does a lot more damage than falling on snow.
> I'd also probably rate the fitness as higher for roller than
> crosscountry as I reckon its a lot easier to take it easy and plod
> along on snow than on rollers. The thrill rating is very dependant on
> where you are skiing - eg roller skiing down the hill road at cairngorm
> whould definitely be a 'thrill'
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: nordicscotland@...
> [mailto:nordicscotland@...] On Behalf Of Peter Thorn
> Sent: 02 October 2007 17:04
> To: nordicscotland@...
> Subject: [nordicscotland] Guardian article on rollerskiing
>
>
>
> The link below takes you to an article that appeared in the Guardian
> newspaper recently. Do you agree with its ratings for thrill, danger &
> fitness?
>
> http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/adventure/story/0,,2176012,0
> <http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/adventure/story/0,,2176012,0
> >
> 0.html
>
> Regards, Peter
> www.nordicski.org
>