Similarities and differences among half-marathon runners according to their performance level

30Citations
Citations of this article
120Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the similarities and differences among half-marathon runners in relation to their performance level. Forty-eight male runners were classified into 4 groups according to their performance level in a half-marathon (min): Group 1 (n = 11, < 70 min), Group 2 (n = 13, < 80 min), Group 3 (n = 13, < 90 min), Group 4 (n = 11, < 105 min). In two separate sessions, training-related, anthropometric, physiological, foot strike pattern and spatio-temporal variables were recorded. Significant differences (p<0.05) between groups (ES = 0.55–3.16) and correlations with performance were obtained (r = 0.34–0.92) in training-related (experience and running distance per week), anthropometric (mass, body mass index and sum of 6 skinfolds), physiological (VO2max, RCT and running economy), foot strike pattern and spatio-temporal variables (contact time, step rate and length). At standardized submaximal speeds (11, 13 and 15 kmh-1), no significant differences between groups were observed in step rate and length, neither in contact time when foot strike pattern was taken into account. In conclusion, apart from training-related, anthropometric and physiological variables, foot strike pattern and step length were the only biomechanical variables sensitive to half-marathon performance, which are essential to achieve high running speeds. However, when foot strike pattern and running speeds were controlled (submaximal test), the spatio-temporal variables were similar. This indicates that foot strike pattern and running speed are responsible for spatio-temporal differences among runners of different performance level.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ogueta-Alday, A., Morante, J. C., Gómez-Molina, J., & García-López, J. (2018). Similarities and differences among half-marathon runners according to their performance level. PLoS ONE, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191688

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free