Literature DB >> 3814989

Anthropometric and training variables related to 10km running performance.

P Bale, D Bradbury, E Colley.   

Abstract

Sixty male distance athletes were divided into three equal groups according to their personal best time for the 10km run. The runners were measured anthropometrically and each runner completed a detailed questionnaire on his athletic status, training programme and performance. The runners in this study had similar anthropometric and training profiles to other distance runners of a similar standard. The most able runners were shorter and lighter than those in the other two groups and significantly smaller skinfold values (P less than 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups for either bone widths or circumferences but the elite and good runners had significantly higher ponderal indices (P less than 0.05) than the average runners, indicating that they are more linear. Elite and good runners were also less endomorphic but more ectomorphic than the average runners. The elite runners trained more often, ran more miles per week and had been running longer (P less than 0.05) than good or average runners. A multiple regression and discriminant function analysis indicated that linearity, total skinfold, the type and frequency of training and the number of years running were the best predictors of running performance and success at the 10km distance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3814989      PMCID: PMC1478338          DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.20.4.170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  10 in total

1.  A modified somatotype method.

Authors:  B H Heath; J E Carter
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1967-07       Impact factor: 2.868

2.  Body composition of elite class distance runners.

Authors:  M L Pollock; L R Gettman; A Jackson; J Ayres; A Ward; A C Linnerud
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Skinfold estimates of body fat among marathon runners.

Authors:  D L Costill; R Bowers; W F Kammer
Journal:  Med Sci Sports       Date:  1970

4.  Validity of "generalized" equations for body composition analysis in male athletes.

Authors:  W E Sinning; D G Dolny; K D Little; L N Cunningham; A Racaniello; S F Siconolfi; J L Sholes
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  The estimation of body density in men: are general equations general?

Authors:  N G Norgan; A Ferro-Luzzi
Journal:  Ann Hum Biol       Date:  1985 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.533

Review 6.  Body composition in sport and exercise: directions for future research.

Authors:  J H Wilmore
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  Body composition and somatotype characteristics of junior Olympic athletes.

Authors:  W G Thorland; G O Johnson; T G Fagot; G D Tharp; R W Hammer
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  The assessment of the amount of fat in the human body from measurements of skinfold thickness.

Authors:  J V Durnin; M M Rahaman
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1967-08       Impact factor: 3.718

9.  Anthropometric and training characteristics of female marathon runners as determinants of distance running performance.

Authors:  P Bale; S Rowell; E Colley
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 3.337

10.  Body composition of elite American athletes.

Authors:  S J Fleck
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

  10 in total
  22 in total

Review 1.  Modelling human locomotion: applications to cycling.

Authors:  T Olds
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Influence of anthropometry on race performance in extreme endurance triathletes: World Challenge Deca Iron Triathlon 2006.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Patrizia Knechtle; Jorge Luis Andonie; Götz Kohler
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 13.800

3.  Leg skinfold thicknesses and race performance in male 24-hour ultra-marathoners.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Patrizia Knechtle; Christoph Alexander Rüst; Thomas Rosemann
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2011-04

4.  Use of Bioimpedianciometer as Predictor of Mountain Marathon Performance.

Authors:  Vicente Javier Clemente-Suarez; Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 4.460

5.  Predictive Variables of Half-Marathon Performance for Male Runners.

Authors:  Josué Gómez-Molina; Ana Ogueta-Alday; Jesus Camara; Christoper Stickley; José A Rodríguez-Marroyo; Juan García-López
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

6.  Performance trends in large 10-km road running races in the United States.

Authors:  Dan M Cushman; Matthew Markert; Monica Rho
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 7.  Quantification of training in competitive sports. Methods and applications.

Authors:  W G Hopkins
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 8.  Biomechanics and running economy.

Authors:  T Anderson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 11.136

9.  Predictor variables for marathon race time in recreational female runners.

Authors:  Wiebke Schmid; Beat Knechtle; Patrizia Knechtle; Ursula Barandun; Christoph Alexander Rüst; Thomas Rosemann; Romuald Lepers
Journal:  Asian J Sports Med       Date:  2012-06

10.  Predictor variables for a half marathon race time in recreational male runners.

Authors:  Christoph Alexander Rüst; Beat Knechtle; Patrizia Knechtle; Ursula Barandun; Romuald Lepers; Thomas Rosemann
Journal:  Open Access J Sports Med       Date:  2011-08-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.