TRAINING VOLUME AND PERSONAL BEST TIME IN
MARATHON, NOT ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS,
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE IN
MALE 100-KM ULTRARUNNERS
BEAT KNECHTLE,1,2 ANDREA WIRTH,1 PATRIZIA KNECHTLE,1
1
Gesundheitszentrum St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland; and 2Department of General Practice,
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3iopPs8eUYyorsQRgfWaG4EGr4mVKVR0k2Y7H1o2HwGk= on 01/04/2020
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
Knechtle, B, Wirth, A, Knechtle, P, and Rosemann, T. Training
volume and personal best time in marathon, not anthropometric
parameters, are associated with performance in male 100-km
ultrarunners. J Strength Cond Res 24(3): 604–609, 2010—We
investigated the relation between selected anthropometric and
training variables and the personal best time in a marathon with
total race time in 66 Caucasian male nonprofessional ultra-
runners in a 100-km run. In the multiple linear regression
analysis, the average weekly training volume in kilometers (r2 =
0.224, p , 0.01) and the personal best time in a marathon (r2 =
0.334, p , 0.01) were significantly associated with total
race time, whereas no anthropometric variable was related to
race performance (p . 0.05). We conclude that high training
volume and a fast time in a marathon were more important for a
fast race time in male 100-km runners than any of the
determined anthropometric variables.
K E Y W O R D S ultraendurance, skin-fold thickness,
anthropometry, percent body fat
INTRODUCTION
I
n runners, different factors with an effect on perfor-
mance are described. Apart from physiological param-
eters, several different anthropometric parameters
depending upon the duration of running are related
to performance such as body mass (2,20), body height
(2,30,32), body mass index (BMI) (15,31), body fat (15), total
skin-fold thickness (2), skin-fold thickness of the lower limb
(1,2,28,29), length of legs (24,39), and circumferences of limbs
(20,21,31,39).
Address correspondence to Dr. Beat Knechtle, beat.knechtle@hispeed.
ch.
24(3)/604–609
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
604 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
AND THOMAS ROSEMANN2
These anthropometric factors may have different effects
over different distances. Body height seems to be associated
with performance in running 10 km (2) and marathons (30);
BMI is related to marathon (15) and ultramarathon per-
formances (19). In addition to BMI, body fat seems to have
an effect on running time and is positively associated with
marathon performance times (15). In some studies, a relation
between skin-fold thicknesses and performance has been
described. Lower skin folds are positively associated with
improved running times up to 10,000 m (1,2,28,29), and skin-
fold thicknesses in the lower limbs are positively associated
with running times over 1,500 and 10,000 m (1,2) and
marathons (3). The length of the upper leg has a positive
association with running times over 800, 1,500, and 5,000 m
(39). Circumferences of chest and thigh are positively asso-
ciated with running times over 800 m, and 1,500 and 5,000 m,
whereas upper arm circumference has shown a positive asso-
ciation with 10,000-m running times (39) and in ultrarunners
(20,21).
Anthropometric properties and their effect on exercise
performance during short and middle distance running and
marathon running have been investigated previously (1,28);
however, there is very little scientific data about the effect of
anthropometry on race performance in ultramarathon runn-
ing (3,17,20,21,22). Ultrarunning means distances longer than
the classic marathon distance of 42.195 km. Ultramarathon
runners seem to have a lower BMI than sedentary people
(40) and have low amounts of fat at the abdomen and legs
(17). These low amounts of body fat are supposed to be the
result of intense training in ultrarunners (17), and this intense
training may lead to an improved performance (3). Probably
a thinner upper body with low circumferences of the upper
arm is advantageous for ultrarunners of distances of more
than 300 km (20) or even 1,200 km (21).
The question is whether anthropometry or training or both
have a relationship with race performance in ultrarunners.
There are a lot of data for runners up to the marathon
distance, but very little data are available for ultrarunners. Bale
et al. found that elite runners running over 10 km both trained
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

more often and for more miles per week (2), and the same
group found that for female marathon runners, the number of
training sessions per week and the number of years of training TABLE 1. The anthropometric variables of the
were the best predictors of competitive performance over 10 successful finishers (n = 66).
miles and marathons (3). In addition, Leake and Carter (26) Variables of anthropometric
concluded that training parameters were more important measurements Result
than anthropometric measurements in the prediction of
performance of female triathletes in short-distance races, and Age (y) 46.7 (8.0)
Body height (cm) 178 (6)
Laurenson et al. (25) concluded from their study of female Body mass (kg) 74.2 (9.9)
short-distance triathletes that no ideal or unique anthropo- Length of leg (cm) 86.9 (4.1)
metric profile with influence on overall performance can be Circumference upper arm (cm) 29.5 (2.4)
established. Presumably, gender was of importance in these Circumference of calf (cm) 33.0 (2.4)
2 studies. Sum of 8 skin folds (mm) 88.0 (33.9)
BMI (kg
m22) 23.4 (2.2)
In addition to training volume, previous race experience Percent body fat (%) 16.3 (4.4)
might also be of importance because in a recent study of male
ultrarunners the positive association of a personal best time in Results are presented as mean (SD).
marathon running on performance in a 24-hour run was
demonstrated, whereas anthropometry and training volume
showed no relation (22). According to Gulbin and Gaffney,
previous best performances in short-distance triathlon Biel, Berne, Switzerland, took place during the night of June
coupled with weekly cycling distances and longest training 13/14, 2008. The runners started the 100-km run at 10:00 PM,
ride could partially predict overall performance in an 13 June. There was an altitude difference of 645 m. During
Ironman race with male and female triathletes (13). this 100-km run, they had 17 aid stations offering food and
The aim of this present investigation was therefore to beverages. The athletes were allowed to be supported by
determine in male 100-km ultrarunners whether variables of a cyclist to have additional food and clothing, if necessary. At
anthropometry and training or personal best times in the 10:00 PM start, the temperature was 15° C, and it was dry.
marathon and 100-km running showed a relation with race During the night, the temperature dropped to 8° C and then
performance. rose to 18° C the next morning by 10:00 AM.
METHODS Procedures
Experimental Approach to the Problem Immediately before the start of the race, body mass;
The organizer of the 50th edition of the 100-km run in Biel, circumferences of upper arm, thigh, and calf; length of leg
Switzerland, contacted all participants of the race in 2008 by and skin-fold thicknesses at 8 sites were measured in our
a separate newsletter, 3 months before the race, in which they subjects to calculate BMI, sum of skin folds, and percent body
were asked to participate in the study. About 2,000 male fat using the anthropometric method. Body mass was
Caucasian runners started in the race, and 70 male ultra- determined using a commercial scale (Beurer BF 15, Beurer
runners were interested in our investigation. The study was GmbH, Ulm, Germany) to the nearest 0.1 kg. Skin-fold
approved by the Institutional Review Board for use of Human thicknesses of chest, midaxillary (vertical), triceps, subscap-
subjects of the Canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland. The athletes ular, abdominal (vertical), suprailiac (at anterior axillary),
were informed of the experi-
mental risks and gave informed
written consent. No criteria for
inclusion/exclusion were used.
Sixty-six athletes out of our TABLE 2. Training variables and previous race experience of the athletes (n = 66).
study group finished the race Variables of training volume and previous experience Result
within the time limit, whereas
one subject finished in the top 3 Years as active runner 11.2 (8.4)
Average weekly training volume in running (km) 75.4 (30.1)**
position. Four runners had to
Average weekly training volume in running (h) 7.5 (2.8)
retire because of medical prob- Average speed in running during training (km
h21) 10.6 (1.6)
lems. The anthropometric var- Personal best time in a marathon (min) (n = 63) 206.8 (30.4)**
iables of our athletes are Personal best time in a 100-km run (min) (n = 42) 658.3 (195.9)
summarized in Table 1, and
Results are presented as mean (SD). The correlation between variables of training and total
their training variables are race time is given (**p , 0.01).
given in Table 2. The 50th
edition of the 100-km run in

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2010 | 605

Performance in 100-km Ultrarunners

were measured at the largest

circumference of the limb. Cir-
cumference of the thigh was
determined 20 cm above the
upper pole of the patella.
Length of the leg was measured
from the trochanter major to the
malleolus lateralis. Every mea-
surement was taken 3 times by
the same person to the nearest
0.1 cm, and then the mean
value was used for calculation.
Percent body fat was calculated
using the following formula:
Percent body fat = 0.465 +
0.180(+7SF) 2 0.0002406
(+7SF)2 + 0.0661(age),
where +7SF = sum of skin-fold
thickness of chest, midaxillary,
triceps, subscapular, abdomen,
suprailiac, and thigh mean,
Figure 1. Athletes with a higher weekly training volume in hours were able to complete the 100-km race faster according to Ball et al. (4). In
(n = 66; r2 = 0.224, p , 0.01). addition to the determination
of the anthropometric parame-
ters, athletes were asked pre
thigh, and calf were measured using a skin-fold calliper race for their average weekly training volume in hours, and
(GPM-skin-fold calliper, Siber & Hegner, Zurich, Switzer- the kilometers run, over the last 3 months before the race.
land) to the nearest 0.2 mm. Skin-fold thicknesses and During the 3 months before the race, each athlete maintained
circumferences of the extremities were measured on the right a comprehensive training diary consisting of daily workouts
side of the body. Circumferences of the upper arm and calf showing distance and duration. Furthermore, they listed their
previous race experience in-
cluding the number of finished
marathons and 100-km runs,
and their personal best time
over these distances.

Statistical Analyses
Results are presented as mean
(SD). A multiple linear regres-
sion analysis (stepwise, p of F
for inclusion ,0.05, p of F for
exclusion .0.1) using race per-
formance as the dependent
variable (Y) was assessed for
the prerace measured and cal-
culated anthropometric predic-
tor variables (body mass, body
height, BMI, percent body fat,
sum of 8 skin-fold thicknesses,
length of leg, and circumfer-
ence of upper arm and calf ), the
training variables (average
Figure 2. Personal best time in marathon running was related to race time in the 100-km run (n = 63; r2 = 0.334, weekly training volume in
p , 0.01). hours and kilometers run and
speed in running during
the TM

606 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


training) and previous race experience (years as active runner
and personal best time in a marathon). Multicollinearity
between predictor variables was excluded with R . 0.9.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the measured and calculated anthropometric
variables of the athletes, Table 2 the training variables and
previous race experience. Athletes were running for 1–25
years, during training, they were running for 2–12 h
wk21 and
completing 25–180 km weekly. Their running speed in
training was from 8.3 to 15.0 km
h21. The successful runners
finished the 100-km run in 701 (123) minutes. Our fastest
runner finished in the top 3 position. The average weekly
running volume in kilometers (Figure 1) (r2 = 0.224, p , 0.01)
and the personal best time in a marathon (Figure 2) (r2 =
0.334, p , 0.01) were associated with race performance. All
investigated anthropometric parameters showed no relation
to total race time (p . 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The main finding of this present investigation was the fact that
selected anthropometric variables having a well-known effect
on performance in runners-up to the marathon distance were
not associated with total race time in these male 100-km
ultrarunners, whereas the average weekly training volume in
kilometers and the personal best time in a marathon showed
an association with race performance.
We found a correlation between the personal best time in
a marathon and total race time (Figure 2). An association
between personal best times over shorter distances and
performances in a longer race has been shown in 3 studies
involving marathoners, ultrarunners, and triathletes. In a
recent study of male ultrarunners in a 24-hour run, the
personal best time in marathon running was associated with
race performance, but anthropometry and training volume
showed no relation (22) and, according to Gulbin and
Gaffney, previous best performances in short-distance tria-
thlons coupled with weekly cycling distances and the longest
training ride could partially predict the overall performance
in an Ironman race involving male and female triathletes (13).
McKelvie et al. found that the final race time in a marathon
was positively related to the best 10-km race time in the
previous 12 months before the marathon (34). For those
runners who had already performed a 100-km run, their
personal best time in a 100-km run showed no association
with actual race performance. Presumably, the number of
finishers (n = 42) was too small compared with the athletes
who had already finished a marathon (n = 63) (Table 2).
In addition to the personal best time in a marathon, the
average weekly training volume in kilometers (Figure 1) was
associated with total race time. According to the literature,
training parameters seem to be of more importance than
anthropometric measurements in the prediction of perfor-
mance in runners (2,3,6,7,8,11,12,14,36). In marathon
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
finishers, the longest mileage covered per training session
is the best predictor for a successful completion of a marathon
(42). In female marathon runners, the number of training
sessions per week and the number of years training were the
best predictors of competitive performance at the marathon
distance (3), and Scrimgeour et al. found that runners training
more than 100 km per week have significantly faster race
times over 10–90 km than athletes covering less than 100 km
(37). According to Billat al., top class marathon runners train
for more total kilometers per week and at a higher velocity
than runners at a lower level (6).
However, training volume seems to have clear limits. There
exists an upper limit in training volume above which there are
no more improvements (38). When training in runners is
analyzed in detail, parameters such as previously completed
marathons (15), workout days (15), total workouts (15), total
kilometers (14), total workout days (14), mean kilometers per
workout (14,15), total training minutes (15), maximal
kilometers of running per week (15), mean kilometers per
week (15), and mean kilometers per day (15) seem to have an
effect on a marathon performance. Probably, gender had an
influence when the effect of training volume on performance
was studied. In one study, Hagan al. investigated female
runners (15) and in another male runners (14).
As Bale et al. could demonstrate in 60 male runners, those
elite runners with a higher training frequency, higher weekly
training volume, and longer running experience had a better
10-km performance (2). According to Hewson and Hopkins,
a correlation exists between seasonal weekly duration of
moderate continuous running for runners specializing in
longer distances (18). In our multiple linear regression
analysis, only average kilometers per week were related to
race performance, but speed in running during training and
average hours of running per week were not related.
A large number of different anthropometric factors are
described that have an influence on race performance in
runners, dependent on the distance. In this present study, we
investigated male ultrarunners beyond the marathon distance,
where presumably other factors are of importance. However,
in contrast to a previous study of ultrarunners where body
mass was associated with race performance (20), in this
present investigation, body mass showed no effect on
performance. Hagan et al. found that in female marathon
runners marathon performance time was positively corre-
lated to BMI, but not to body mass (15). However, body fat
was also positively correlated to marathon performance time.
Bale et al. described in female marathon runners that elite
runners had a lower percentage of fat (3), and Hetland et al.
could demonstrate that regional and total body fat correlated
inversely to the performance in an incremental treadmill test
in long-distance runners (17). In contrast, we could not find
an association of percent body fat with race performance in
these 100-km runners. Probably, this was because of to
gender. Although we investigated male ultrarunners, Hagan
et al. (15) and Bale et al. (3) studied female runners.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2010 | 607
Performance in 100-km Ultrarunners
Low amounts of body fat seem to be advantageous for
ultrarunners. In the literature, there are several studies
showing an effect of thin skin-fold thicknesses on running
performance, especially up to 10,000 m. The amount of fat
and the thickness of skin folds seem to be of importance for
performance in runners. It has been shown that physical
performance is negatively related to body fat and positively
related to skeletal muscle mass (27). In runners, a high
amount of adipose tissue leads to a higher body mass and an
impairment of performance because more weight has to be
moved, which does not contribute to power development.
The study of Hetland et al. demonstrated that regional and
total body fat was negatively correlated with performance
in a treadmill test (17). In runners, decreased skin-fold
thicknesses in the lower limb were measured after a longer
training period; this might be particularly useful in predicting
running performance (28). In the study of Legaz and Eston,
3 years of training reduced skin-fold thickness, and the
change in performance was related to the change in skin-fold
thickness of triceps, front thigh, and medial calf (28).
The lower skin-fold values found in runners might be
because of the high performance (29). However, in non-
runners also, fat percentage is significantly associated with
12-minute running performance (33). A low skin-fold
thickness seems to be associated with performance. Bale
et al. found that total skin-fold, the type and frequency of
training, and the number of years of running were the best
predictors of running performance and success for the 10-km
distance (2). In our male ultrarunners, anthropometric
parameters, such as skin-fold thicknesses and the total sum
of skin-fold thickness, did not correlate with total race time.
Presumably, distances up to the marathon and 100-km runs
are not comparable races.
In addition to skin folds, circumferences of extremities seem
to have an influence on performance. In 2 studies of
ultrarunners in a multistage ultraendurance run over 333 km
(20) and over 1,200 km (21), the upper arm circumference
was associated with race performance. In one study of
Eritrean and Spanish runners, the Eritrean runners had
a lower maximal calf circumference compared with the
Spaniards (31). However, in our 100-km runners, neither
upper arm circumference nor calf circumference had an effect
on race performance (Table 1). Probably, a thin upper body is
only advantageous in races longer than 100 km.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
We have now the dilemma, that in these 100-km runners,
both a high training volume (average weekly running
kilometers) and a high intensity (personal best marathon
time) are correlated to total race time. This means, that a fast
race time over 100 km is obviously dependent on both a high
mileage in running and a fast running speed in the marathon.
However, a high training volume and a high intensity in
running are both potentially associated with serious prob-
lems: An ultraendurance performance can suppress the
the TM
608 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
hypopituitary-gonadal axis and lead to a decreased
testosterone level (23). However, this decrease could be
prevented by resistance exercise, thus leading to an increase
in testosterone (41). A higher running speed could lead to
more forefoot strike (16), thus potentially leading to more
injuries of the lower limbs. Fortunately, anthropometry
showed no relation to race performance. In case of a low
body fat would have been correlated with total race time,
anorexia and drive for thinness (10) could also become
a problem in ultrarunning. To solve the mentioned dilemma,
in future studies with ultrarunners over the 100-km distance,
the training should be analyzed in detail and correlated with
race performance to find out whether rather a high mileage at
low intensity or a low mileage at rather high intensity would
be better for a fast race time over 100 km. Furthermore,
a training study with 2 groups of ultrarunners where 1 group
is performing prerace resistance exercise in addition to the
running training and the other group is not could clarify
about a potential benefit of resistance exercise during high-
volume running. A beneficial effect of resistance exercise on
running speed (higher muscle mass) and testosterone (increase
despite a higher training mileage) could be expected.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors had no conflict of interest and no financial
support for the study. For their help in translation, we thank
Matthias Knechtle, Lausanne, Switzerland, and Mary Miller
from Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland in England, crew member
of an ultraendurance support crew. Special thanks go to
Markus Gnädinger, MD, Steinach, Switzerland, and Hans
Drexler, MD, PhD, Braunschweig, Germany, for their
constructive criticism.
REFERENCES
1. Arrese, AL and Ostariz, ES. Skinfold thicknesses associated with
distance running performance in highly trained runners. J Sports Sci
24: 69–76, 2006.
2. Bale, P, Bradbury, D, and Colley, E. Anthropometric and training
variables related to 10 km running performance. Br J Sports Med 20:
170–173, 1986.
3. Bale, P, Rowell, S, and Colley, E. Anthropometric and training
characteristics of female marathon runners as determinants of
distance running performance. J Sports Sci 3: 115–126, 1985.
4. Ball, SD, Altena, TS, and Swan, PD. Comparison of anthropometry
to DXA: a new prediction equation for men. Eur J Clin Nutr 58:
1525–1531, 2004.
5. Billat, V, Demarle, A, Paiva, M, and Koralsztein, JP. Effect of training
on the physiological factors of performance in elite marathon
runners (male and females). Int J Sports Med 23: 336–341, 2002.
6. Billat, V, Lepretre, PM, Heugas, AM, Laurence, MH, Salim, D, and
Koralsztein, JP. Training and bioenergetic characteristics in elite
male and female Kenyan runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 297–304,
2003.
7. Billat, VL, Demarle, A, Slawinski, J, Paiva, M, and Koralsztein, JP.
Physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners.
Med Sci Sports Exec 33: 2089–2097, 2001.
8. Christensen, CL and Ruhling, RO. Physical characteristics of novice
and experienced women marathon runners. Br J Sports Med 17: 166–
171, 1983.

9. Davies, CT and Thompson, MW. Aerobic performance of female
marathon and male ultramarathon athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 41:
233–245, 1979.
10. De Souza, MJ, Hontscharuk, R, Olmsted, M, Kerr, G, and Williams, NI.
Drive for thinness score is a proxy indicator of energy deficiency in
exercising women. Appetite 48: 359–367, 2007.
11. Dolgener, FA, Kolkhorst, FW, and Whitsett, DA. Long slow
distance training in novice marathoners. Res Q Exerc Sports 65: 339–
346, 1994.
12. Esteve-Lanao, J, San Juan, AF, Earnest, CP, Foster, C, and Lucia, A.
How do endurance runners actually train? Relationship with
competition performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 496–504, 2005.
13. Gulbin, JP and Gaffney, PT. Ultraendurance triathlon participation:
typical race preparation of lower level triathletes. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 39: 12–15, 1999.
14. Hagan, RD, Smith, MG, and Gettman, LR. Marathon performance
in relation to maximal aerobic power and training indices. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 13: 185–189, 1981.
15. Hagan, RD, Upton, SJ, Duncan, JJ, and Gettman, LR. Marathon
performance in relation to maximal aerobic power and training
indices in female distance runners. Br J Sports Med 21: 3–7, 1987.
16. Hasegawa, H, Yamauchi, T, and Kraemer, WJ. Foot strike patterns of
runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 888–893, 2007.
17. Hetland, ML, Haarbo, J, and Christiansen, C. Regional body
composition determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Relation to training, sex hormones, and serum lipids in male long-
distance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8: 102–108, 1998.
18. Hewson, DJ and Hopkins, WG. Specificity of training and its relation
to the performance of distance runners. Int J Sports Med 17: 199–204,
1996.
19. Hoffmann, MD. Anthropometric characteristics of ultramarathon-
ers. Int J Sports Med 2008; DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1038434.
20. Knechtle, B, Duff, B, Welzel, U, and Kohler, G. Body mass and
circumference of upper arm are associated with race performance in
ultra-endurance runners in a multi-stage race – the Isarrun 2006.
Res Q Exerc Sport; 80: 262–268, 2009.
21. Knechtle, B, Knechtle, P, Schulze, I, and Kohler, G. Upper arm
circumference is associated with race performance in ultra-
endurance runners. Br J Sports Med 42: 295–299, 2008.
22. Knechtle, B, Wirth, A, Knechtle, P, Zimmermann, K, and Kohler, G.
Personal best marathon performance is associated with performance
in a 24-hour run and not anthropometry or training volume. Br J
Sports Med 43: 836–839, 2009.
23. Kraemer, WJ, Fragala, MS, Watson, G, Volek, JS, Rubin, MR, French, DN,
Maresh, CM, Vingren, JL, Hatfield, DL, Spiering, BA, Yu-Ho, J, Hughes,
SL, Case, HS, Stuempfle, KJ, Lehmann, DR, Bailey, S, and Evans,
DS.Hormonal responses to a 160-km race across frozen Alaska. Br J
Sports Med 42: 116–120, 2008.
24. Larsen, HB, Christensen, DL, Nolan, T, and Søndergaard, H. Body
dimensions, exercise capacity and physical activity level of
adolescent Nandi boys in western Kenya. Ann Hum Biol 31: 159–173,
2004.
25. Laurenson, NM, Fulcher, KY, and Korkia, P. Physiological
characteristics of elite and club level female triathletes during
running. Int J Sports Med 14: 455–459, 1993.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
26. Leake, CN and Carter, JE. Comparison of body composition and
somatotype of trained female triathletes. J Sports Sci 9: 125–135,
1991.
27. Leedy, HE, Ismail, AH, Kessler, WV, and Christian JE. Relationships
between physical performance items and body composition. Res Q
36: 158–163, 1965.
28. Legaz, A and Eston, R. Changes in performance, skinfold
thicknesses, and fat patterning after three years of intense athletic
conditioning in high level runners. Br J Sports Med 39: 851–856,
2005.
29. Legaz Arrese, A, Gonzalez Badillo, JJ, and Serrano Ostariz, E.
Differences in skinfold thicknesses and fat distribution among top-
class runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 45: 512–517, 2005.
30. Loftin, M, Sothern, M, Koss, C, Tuuri, G, Vanvrancken, C, Kontos, A,
and Bonis, M. Energy expenditure and influence of physiologic
factors during marathon running. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1188–1191,
2007.
31. Lucia, A, Esteve-Lanao, J, Oliván, J, Gómez-Gallego, F, San Juan,
AF, Santiago, C, Pérez, M, Chamorro-Viña, C, and Foster, C.
Physiological characteristics of the best Eritrean runners-exceptional
running economy. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 31: 530–540, 2006.
32. Maldonado, S, Mujika, I, and Padilla, S. Influence of body mass and
height on the energy cost of running in highly trained middle- and
long-distance runners. Int J Sports Med 23: 268–272, 2002.
33. Mattila, VM, Tallroth, K, Marttinen, M, and Pihlajamäki, H. Body
composition by DEXA and its association with physical fitness in
140 conscripts. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 2242–2247, 2007.
34. McKelvie, SJ, Valliant, PM, and Asu, ME. Physical training and
personality factors as predictors of marathon time and training
injury. Percept Mot Skills 60: 551–566, 1985.
35. Noakes, TD, Myburgh, KH, and Schall, R. Peak treadmill running
velocity during the VO2max test predicts running performance.
J Sports Sci 8: 35–45, 1990.
36. Scott, BK, and Houmard, JA. Peak performance velocity is highly
related to distance running performance. Int J Sports Med 15: 504–
507, 1994.
37. Scrimgeour, AG, Noakes, TD, Adams, B, and Myburgh, K. The
influence of weekly training distance on fractional utilization of
maximum aerobic capacity in marathon and ultramarathon runners.
Eur J Appl Physiol 55; 202–209, 1986.
38. Sjödin, B and Svedenhag, J. Applied physiology of marathon
running. Sports Med 2: 83–99, 1985.
39. Tanaka, K and Matsuura, Y. A multivariate analysis of the role of
certain anthropometric and physiological attributes in distance
running. Ann Hum Biol 9: 473–482, 1982.
40. Tokudome, S, Kuriki, K, Yamada, N, Ichikawa, H, Miyata, M, Shibata K,
Hoshino, H, Tsuge, S, Tokudome, M, Goto, C, Tokudome, Y,
Kobayashi, M, Goto, H, Suzuki, S, Okamato, Y, Ikeda, M, and Sato, Y.
Anthropometric, lifestyle and biomarker assessment of Japanese non-
professional ultra-marathon runners. J Epidemiol 14: 161–167, 2004.
41. Volek, JS, Kraemer, WJ, Bush, JA, Incledon, T, and Boetes, M.
Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and
resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 82: 49–54, 1997.
42. Yeung, SS, Yeung, EW, and Wong, TW. Marathon finishers and non-
finishers characteristics. A preamble to success. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 41: 170–176, 2001.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2010 | 609