| Literature DB >> 31137635 |
Emma O'Loughlin1, Pantelis T Nikolaidis2,3, Thomas Rosemann4, Beat Knechtle5,6.
Abstract
Ultra-marathon races are increasing in popularity. Women are now 20% of all finishers, and this number is growing. Predictors of performance have been examined rarely for women in ultra-marathon running. This study aimed to examine the predictors of performance for women and men in the 62 km Wellington Urban Ultramarathon 2018 (WUU2K) and create an equation to predict ultra-marathon race time. For women, volume of running during training per week (km) and personal best time (PBT) in 5 km, 10 km, and half-marathon (min) were all associated with race time. For men, age, body mass index (BMI), years running, running speed during training (min/km), marathon PBT, and 5 km PBT (min) were all associated with race time. For men, ultra-marathon race time might be predicted by the following equation: (r² = 0.44, adjusted r² = 0.35, SE = 78.15, degrees of freedom (df) = 18) ultra-marathon race time (min) = -30.85 ± 0.2352 × marathon PBT + 25.37 × 5 km PBT + 17.20 × running speed of training (min/km). For women, ultra-marathon race time might be predicted by the following equation: (r² = 0.83, adjusted r2 = 0.75, SE = 42.53, df = 6) ultra-marathon race time (min) = -148.83 + 3.824 × (half-marathon PBT) + 9.76 × (10 km PBT) - 6.899 × (5 km PBT). This study should help women in their preparation for performance in ultra-marathon and adds to the bulk of knowledge for ultra-marathon preparation available to men.Entities:
Keywords: anthropometry; athlete; performance; running; ultramarathon
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31137635 PMCID: PMC6571892 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16101844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Female bivariate analysis (n = 26). Wellington Urban Ultramarathon (WUU), PB (personal best).
| Average ± SD | R Squared | Adjusted R Squared | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 557.35 ± 67.23 | |||
|
| 39.10 ± 1.97 | 0.049 | 0.010 | 0.272 |
|
| 61.12 ± 1.16 | 0.004 | −0.037 | 0.753 |
|
| 1.66 ± 0.01 | 0.001 | −0.040 | 0.866 |
|
| 22.07 ± 0.45 | 0.004 | −0.036 | 0.732 |
|
| 17.88 ±13.26 | 0.008 | −0.033 | 0.66 |
|
| 06:08 ± 01:04 | 0.085 | 0.031 | 0.226 |
|
| 65.52 ± 20.07 * | 0.152 | 0.116 | 0.049 * |
|
| 8.84 ± 5.68 | 0.011 | −0.032 | 0.614 |
|
| 223.16 ± 27.27 | 0.126 | 0.074 | 0.135 |
|
| 104.91 ± 13.53 | 0.532 | 0.509 | 0.0001 *** |
|
| 45.51 ± 4.73 | 0.430 | 0.373 | 0.021 * |
|
| 22.56 ± 2.86 | 0.467 | 0.432 | 0.002 ** |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Male bivariate analysis (n = 57).
| Ave ± SD | R Squared | Adjusted R Squared | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 523.19 ± 89.29 | |||
|
| 40.59 ± 1.26 | 0.079 | 0.061 | 0.035 * |
|
| 74.35 ± 1.22 | 0.017 | 0.0001 | 0.328 |
|
| 1.77 ± 0.01 | 0.042 | 0.025 | 0.125 |
|
| 23.50 ± 0.29 | 0.102 | 0.085 | 0.016 * |
|
| 19.94 ± 15.41 | 0.0007 | −0.01922 | 0.844 |
|
| 05:48 ± 00:59 | 0.200 | 0.183 | 0.0001 ** |
|
| 70.99 ± 22.73 | 0.003 | −0.015 | 0.701 |
|
| 9.33 ± 8.29 | 0.0959 | 0.079 | 0.023 * |
|
| 210.14 ± 266.35 | 0.255 | 0.233 | 0.002 ** |
|
| 98.95 ± 26.38 | 0.064 | 0.042 | 0.097 |
|
| 44.48 ± 12.64 | 0.0056 | 0.029 | 0.158 |
|
| 19.61 ± 2.75 | 0.249 | 0.225 | 0.003 ** |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 1(a) Correlation of predicted women’s ultramarathon times with actual race times; (b) Correlation of predicted men’s ultramarathon times with actual race times.
Figure 2Bland–Altman plots comparing predicted and effective race times for women.
Figure 3Bland–Altman plots comparing predicted and effective race times for men.