4.7 Article

A macro to micro analysis to understand performance in 100-mile ultra-marathons worldwide

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28398-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to describe differences in participation and performance in 100-mile ultra-marathons by continent. The data showed that most athletes were from America and Europe, but the fastest runners were from Africa. The study also found that women from Sweden, Hungary, and Russia had the best performances, while men from Brazil, Russia, and Lithuania were the fastest.
The purposes of this study were (i) to describe differences in participation in 100-mile ultra-marathons by continent; (ii) to investigate differences in performance between continents; and (iii) to identify the fastest runners by continent and country. Data from 148,169 athletes (119,408 men), aged 18-81 years, and finishers in a 100-miles ultra-marathon during 1870-2020 were investigated. Information about age, gender, origin, performance level (top three, top 10, top 100) was obtained. Kruskal-Wallis tests and linear regressions were performed. Athletes were mostly from America and Europe. A macro-analysis showed that the fastest men runners were from Africa, while the fastest women runners were from Europe and Africa. Women from Sweden, Hungary and Russia presented the best performances in the top three, top 10 and top 100. Men from Brazil, Russia and Lithuania were the fastest. The lowest performance and participation were observed for runners from Asia. In summary, in 100-miles ultra-marathon running, the majority of athletes were from America, but for both sexes and performance levels, the fastest runners were from Africa. On a country level, the fastest women were from Sweden, Hungary and Russia, while the fastest men were from Brazil, Russia and Lithuania.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available