4.4 Article

Effect of training on the physiological factors of performance in elite marathon runners (males and females)

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 336-341

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-33265

Keywords

training; oxygen uptake; running; female

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the effect of 8 weeks of specific marathon training before the Olympic trials on the physiological factors of the marathon performance in top-class marathon runners. Five males and four females, age 34 +/- 6yr (+/-SD) with a marathon performance time of 2 h 11 min 40 s +/- 2 min 27 s for males and 2 h 35 min 34 s 2 min 54 s for females, performed one test ten and two weeks before the trials. Between this period they trained weekly 180 +/- 27 km and 155 +/- 19 km with 11 +/- 7 and 7 +/- 0% of this distance at velocity over 10000 m for males and females, respectively. The purpose of this test was to determine in real conditions i.e. on level road: (V) over dotO(2)peak, the energy cost of running and the fractional utilisation Of (V)over dotO(2)peak at the marathon velocity (vMarathon). They ran 10 km at the speed of their personal best marathon performance on a level road and after a rest of 6 min they ran an all-out 1000 m run. (V) over dotO(2)peak increased after the 8 weeks of pre-competitive training (66.3 +/- 9.2 vs 69.9 +/- 9.4 ml x min(-1) x kg(-1), p = 0.01). Moreover, since the oxygen cost of running at vMarathon did not change after this training, the fractional utilization (F) of (V) over dotO(2)peak during the 10 km run at vMarathon decreased significantly after training (94.6 +/- 6.2% (V) over dotO(2)peak vs 90.3 +/- 9.5% (V) over dotO(2)peak, p = 0.04). The high intensity of pre-competitive training increased (V) over dotO(2)peak and did not change the running economy at vMarathon and decreased the fractional utilization Of (V) over dotO(2)peak at vMarathon.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available