4.7 Article

Impact of marathon performance on muscles stiffness in runners over 50 years old

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1069774

Keywords

sport; marathon; muscle stiffness; running economy; endurance performance; older-age runners

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research examines the relationship between marathon performance and muscle stiffness changes in recreational runners aged 50+ years. The study found that long-distance running exercise (marathon) in older recreational runners did not significantly affect muscle stiffness. However, there was reduced muscle stiffness in the triceps of the calf in the dominant leg.
IntroductionThe research examines the relationship between marathon performance and muscle stiffness changes from pre to marathon in recreational runners aged 50+ years. MethodsThirty-one male long-distance runners aged 50-73 years participated in the experiment. The muscle stiffness of quadriceps and calves was measured in two independent sessions: the day before the marathon and 30 min after the completed marathon run using a Myoton device. Results and DiscussionThe 42.195-km run was completed in 4.30,05 h +/- 35.12 min, which indicates an intensity of 79.3% +/- 7.1% of HRmax. The long-term, low-intensity running exercise (marathon) in older recreational runners and the low level of HRmax and VO2max showed no statistically significant changes in muscle stiffness (quadriceps and calves). There was reduced muscle stiffness (p = 0.016), but only in the triceps of the calf in the dominant (left) leg. Moreover, to optimally evaluate the marathon and adequately prepare for the performance training program, we need to consider the direct and indirect analyses of the running economy, running technique, and HRmax and VO2max variables. These variables significantly affect marathon exercise.

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