Abstract
im of the present study was to compare anthropometric, body composition and physiological parameters in middle- and long-distance runners of the same performance level and to identify variables that could predict the probability of being either a middle- or a long-distance runner. National-level middle- distance (n=20, body mass M=70.5, SD=6.3 kg, body height M=1.80, SD=0.04 m,) and long-distance (n=20, body mass M=69.0, SD=4.5 kg, body height M=1.81, SD=0.05 m) runners performed an incremental test on a treadmill. Anthropometric and body composition parameters were measured and different body length and mass ratios were calculated. Middle- and long-distance runners did not differ (p>.05) in their leg mass, length proportions, in their measured anthropometric or body composition parameters, except for the lower leg length. Performance in middle-distance runners was best described by the lower leg to upper leg mass ratio (Adj R 2 =.41; p<.05) and the second ventilatory threshold time (Adj R 2 =.33; p<.05), while the performance in long-distance runners was best described by the total time on a treadmill (Adj R 2 =.36; p<.05). The constructed model showed that VO 2maxtime (OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.012) and age (OR=1.57; 95% CI 1.065-2.310) classified middle- and long-distance runners in their specialties. In conclusion, the results of the present study demonstrate the relevance of specific anthropometric parameters in predicting middle- but not long-distance running performance. Key words: runners’ specialty, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, running performance, leg mass, leg length Introduction Running performance is related to a variety of physiological characteristics in national (Maldo- nado, Mujika, & Padilla, 2002) and elite (Rabadan, et al., 2011) level middle- and long-distance runners. In addition to high maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max), endurance performance in different running distances is also related to maximal running speed (v max) and oxygen cost of running
length Introduction Running performance is related to a variety of physiological characteristics in national (Maldo- nado, Mujika, & Padilla, 2002) and elite (Rabadan, et al., 2011) level middle- and long-distance runners. In addition to high maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max), endurance performance in different running distances is also related to maximal running speed (v max) and oxygen cost of running (Cr) (Rabadan, et al., 2011). It has been found that national (Maldonado, et al., 2002) and elite (Rabadan, et al., 2011; Svedenhag & Sjödin, 1984) level long-distance runners present significantly higher VO 2max values than the middle-distance runners. Elite long-distance runners (Rabadan, et al., 2011) demonstrate higher second ventilatory threshold (VT 2) values compared to middle-distance runners (Beaver, Wasserman, & Whipp, 1986). VO 2max values in elite male runners increase in running distances up to 3,000 m, showing a greater importance of this parameter for performance prediction, while VO 2max appears to be similar from 3,000 m to marathon distances, thus indicating similar importance of VO 2max for these running events (Legaz, et al., 2007). Furthermore, middle- and long-distance runners use different training volumes and intensities which lead to different adaptations in aerobic performance parameters (Rabadan, et al., 2011). In addition to different physiological para- meters, several anthropometric and body compo- sition values are known to be associated with running performance in elite Caucasian middle- and long-distance (Arrese & Ostariz, 2006) and ultramarathon (B. Knechtle, P. Knechtle, Schulze, & Kohler, 2008) runners. For example, body height and mass (Maldonado, et al., 2002), fat and fat-free mass (Winter & Hamley, 1976), arm circumference
Mooses, M. et al.: ANTHROPOMETRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ... Kinesiology 45(2013) 2:154-162 155 (B. Knechtle, et al., 2008), different lower limb skinfolds and circumferences (Arrese & Ostariz, 2006; Legaz & Eston, 2005; Tanaka & Matsuura, 1982) and also sum of three (Kong & de Heer, 2008) and six (Legaz & Eston, 2005) skinfolds have been related to distance running performance. Runners with a proportionally smaller amount of body mass concentrated in the extremities, particularly in the legs, would perform less work moving their body segments during running if all other factors are unchanged (Myers & Steudel, 1985). Therefore, leg mass and the distribution of leg mass might be important characteristics of distance runners’ performance (Myers & Steudel, 1985). Despite a number of studies describing different anthropometric parameters related to running performance over different distances (B. Knechtle, et al., 2008; Kong & de Heer, 2008; Arrese & Ostariz, 2006; Legaz & Eston, 2005; Maldonado, et al., 2002; Tanaka & Matsuura, 1982), there is paucity of studies investigating the associations between specific anthropometric ratios of lower limb and running performances in different running events. However, there is a study (Lucia, et al., 2008) that has described leg length ratio to body height in top- level Spanish distance runners in comparison with one of the best Eritrean runners. The aim of the current study was to compare anthropometric, body composition and physiologi- cal parameters in middle- and long-distance run- ners of the same performance level. The second aim was to identify variables that predict the prob- ability of being either a middle- or a long-distance runner. It was hypothesized that if the performance level of runners is the same according to the In- ternational Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) scoring points, long-distance runners in comparison with middle-distance runners have: (i) lower body mass and lower body fat percent; (ii) smaller upper and lower leg circumferences; and (iii) higher speed at VT 2 and VO 2max intensi- ties. Therefore, the identification of specific anthropometric and body composition pro- portions that could characterize middle- and long-distance runners would be important and could be used for talent
comparison with middle-distance runners have: (i) lower body mass and lower body fat percent; (ii) smaller upper and lower leg circumferences; and (iii) higher speed at VT 2 and VO 2max intensi- ties. Therefore, the identification of specific anthropometric and body composition pro- portions that could characterize middle- and long-distance runners would be important and could be used for talent identification and performance prediction. Methods Experimental approach to the problem The IAAF scoring table was used to de- termine the performance level of athletes and to divide them into either a middle- or a long- distance runners group depending on which discipline score was higher. An incremen- tal test on a treadmill was utilized to meas- ure the basic physiological parameters. Since mid- dle-distance race time is shorter and trainings are more intense but of lower volume compared with the long-distance race time and trainings (Rabadan, et al., 2011), we assumed that body composition and anthropometric parameters would be markedly dif- ferent in these two groups of runners. Subjects A total of 40 male national-level middle- and long- distance runners participated in the study. Athletes were recruited from different training groups across the country and were contacted through e-mail. The runners were classified as middle-distance runners (n=20) when competing from 800 to 1,500 m and long-distance runners (n=20) when competing from 3,000 m to marathon distances based on the highest International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) scores during the last season in the corresponding distance (Table 1). The 3,000 m distance was used as the cut-off value because it has been shown that VO 2max values increase from 100 to 3,000 m and plateau for the longer distances (3,000 m to marathon) (Legaz, et al., 2007). The participation criteria were a minimum of five times per week regular training sessions during the last three years, average monthly mileage during the last year of at least 240 km and inclusion in the top 20 at the National Athletics Association ranking list at least in one distance between 800 m and marathon. The best performance of athletes involved in several events was
a minimum of five times per week regular training sessions during the last three years, average monthly mileage during the last year of at least 240 km and inclusion in the top 20 at the National Athletics Association ranking list at least in one distance between 800 m and marathon. The best performance of athletes involved in several events was established using the Scoring Tables of the IAAF (Legaz & Eston, 2005). Study procedures and protocols were approved by the local ethics committee. All the procedures and possible risks were described and the participants were familiarized with the procedures before providing a written informed consent to participate in the experiment. Table 1. Characteristics of the middle-distance (MD) and long- distance (LD) runners (mean±s) MD (n=20) LD (n=20) Cohen d Age (year) 21.1±3.4 25.4±3.8** 1.19 Height (m) 1.80±0.04 1.81±0.05 0.22 Body mass (kg) 70.5±6.3 69.0±4.5 0.27 BMI (kg·m -2 ) 21.6±1.5 21.1±1.2 0.37 Body fat (%) 8.1± 2.0 7.6 ±1. 9 0.26 IA AF (points) 829±99 814±85 0.16 VO 2max (ml·kg -1 ·min -1 ) 64.2±5.8 67.4±5.9 0.55 vVO 2max (km·h -1 ) a 17.8±1.3 19.0±1.0** 1.03 vVT 2 (km·h -1 ) b 16.4±1.3 17.3±0.8* 0.83 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01 significant differences between middle-distance and long-distance runners. a Treadmill speed at the maximal oxygen uptake intensity. b Treadmill speed at the second ventilatory threshold.
Kinesiology 45(2013) 2:154-162Mooses, M. et al.: ANTHROPOMETRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ... 156 Procedures At the end of the outdoor season, the partici - pants performed an incremental running test on a treadmill (HP Cosmos Quasar, Nussdorf-Traun- stein, Germany) until voluntary exhaustion. At least 24 hours prior to testing, the athletes were encour- aged to abstain from any hard training and com- petition. All the runners were fully familiarized with the use of this apparatus. The initial treadmill speed was set at 8 km·h -1 and was increased by 2 km·h -1 after every three minutes up to 14 km·h -1 . From that point onwards the speed was increased by 1 km·h -1 every three minutes until voluntary ex- haustion (Zafeiridis, Sarivasiliou, Dipla, & Vrabas, 2010). The treadmill inclination was set at a con- stant gradient of 1% to simulate outdoor running (Lucia, et al., 2006; Jones & Doust, 1996). Expired gases were measured continuously by the oxygen analyzer Metamax 3B (Cortex Biophysic GMBH, Leipzig, Germany). Metabolic cart was calibrated before each measurement according to the manu- facturer’s instructions. VO 2max was defined as the highest average VO 2 during a 30 second period and a failure to increase VO 2 further despite an increase in work rate (Was- serman, Hansen, Sue, Stringer, & Whipp, 2005). Speed at VO 2max (vVO 2max) was defined as the high- est treadmill speed at the end of the test. If the run- ner could not complete the three-minute period of the last speed, the vVO 2max was calculated using the last completed velocity (vlast) and the relative dura - tion of the last uncompleted velocity (frac) as fol- lows: vVO 2max = vlast + frac (Kaikkonen, Hynynen, Mann, Rusko, & Nummela, 2010). The second ven- tilatory threshold (VT 2) was determined as the sec- ond rise in the ventilation and VT 2 speed (vVT2) was defined as a corresponding treadmill speed (Rabadan, et al., 2011). Body height (Martin metal anthropometer) and body mass (A&D Instruments Ltd, Oxfordshire, UK) of the participants were measured to the near- est 0.1 cm and 0.05 kg, respectively. In
ven- tilatory threshold (VT 2) was determined as the sec- ond rise in the ventilation and VT 2 speed (vVT2) was defined as a corresponding treadmill speed (Rabadan, et al., 2011). Body height (Martin metal anthropometer) and body mass (A&D Instruments Ltd, Oxfordshire, UK) of the participants were measured to the near- est 0.1 cm and 0.05 kg, respectively. In total, six skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, iliac crest, abdomi- nal, front thigh and medial calf), 13 girths (head, neck, arm relaxed, arm flexed and tensed, forearm, wrist, chest, waist, gluteal, thigh, mid-thigh, calf, ankle), and eight lengths (acromiale-radiale, radi- ale-stylion, midstylion-dactylion, iliospinale height, trochanterion height, trochanteriontibiale laterale, tibiale-laterale height, tibiale mediale-sphyrion tib- iale) were recorded. The sum of six skinfolds (tri- ceps, subscapular, iliac crest, abdominal, front thigh and medial calf) was calculated (Lucia, et al., 2006; Legaz & Eston, 2005). The series of an- thropometric measurements were taken by a trained anthropometrist who had previously shown test-re- test reliability of r>.9. The Centurion kit instrumen- tation was used (Rosscraft, Surrey, BC, Canada) for skinfold, girth and length measurements. All anthropometric variables were measured accord- ing to the protocol recommended by the Interna- tional Society for Advancement of Kinanthropom- etry (ISAK) (Norton & Olds, 1996). The following calculations were made: upper leg length = iliospinale–tibiale laterale and total leg length = upper leg length + tibiale medi- ale-sphyrion tibiale (lower leg length). In addition, the following anthropometric ratios were calculated: 1. leg mass to body mass: leg mass (kg)/body mass (kg)*100 2. upper leg (thigh) mass to body mass: upper leg (kg)/body mass (kg)*100 3. lower leg (calf) mass to body mass: calf mass (kg)/body mass (kg)*100 4. lower leg (calf) mass to upper leg (thigh) mass: calf mass (kg)/thigh mass (kg)*100 5. leg length to body height: leg length (m)/total body height (m)*100 6. upper leg (thigh) length to body height: upper leg (m)/total body height (m)*100 7. lower leg (calf) length to body height: lower leg (m)/total body height (m)*100 8. lower leg (calf) length to upper leg (thigh) length: lower leg (m)/upper leg (m)*100 Relative subcutaneous fat patterning
(kg)*100 5. leg length to body height: leg length (m)/total body height (m)*100 6. upper leg (thigh) length to body height: upper leg (m)/total body height (m)*100 7. lower leg (calf) length to body height: lower leg (m)/total body height (m)*100 8. lower leg (calf) length to upper leg (thigh) length: lower leg (m)/upper leg (m)*100 Relative subcutaneous fat patterning was as- sessed by the distribution of skinfolds on the body: extremity (triceps, front thigh, medial calf)/trunk (subscapular, iliac crest, abdominal) skinfolds ratio (ET ratio) (Legaz & Eston, 2005). Body composition was measured by Dual En- ergy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) (DPX-IQ Lunar Corporation, Madison, WI, USA) with the partici- pant in supine position (Hetland, Haarbo, & Chris- tiansen, 1998). Total fat and lean mass were meas- ured for total body, upper leg (thigh) and lower leg (calf). Statistical analyses Middle- and long-distance groups were com- pared with Student t -test or Mann-Whitney U-test. Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988) was calculated to indi- cate effect size and practical meaningfulness. The effect sizes were judged using Lipsey’s criteria and considered medium when d was between 0.45 and 0.89, and large when d was higher than 0.90 (Lipsey, 1990). Pearson’s or Spearman’s correla- tion coefficients were used to determine the cor- relation between IAAF points and anthropometric and body composition characteristics. The variables that showed statistically significant correlation with the IAAF points were used in linear regression. Bi- nary logistic regression was applied to determine which variables had most influence on the odds of being either a middle-distance or a long-distance runner. Goodness-of-fit tests included model chi- squares to determine model appropriateness and
Mooses, M. et al.: ANTHROPOMETRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ... Kinesiology 45(2013) 2:154-162 157 Wald statistics to evaluate the contributions of pre- dictor variables. Finally, using the same variables derived from the binary logistic regressions, discri- minant analyses were performed to control a func- tion that would predict the specialty to which an athlete might be best suited. All calculations were performed using SPSS v.17 software for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The level of significance was set at p<.05. Statistical power for significant differences was higher than .82. Results Long-distance runners showed significantly higher VT 2 and VO 2max speeds than middle-distance runners when running on a treadmill (Table 1). The long-distance runners were significantly older than the middle-distance runners. However, the two groups of runners did not differ significantly as for their body mass. Running performance (IAAF points) of long- distance runners was significantly related to the total running time on a treadmill (tTotal) (r=.63). Of the physiological parameters only VT 2 time was significantly related (r=.57) to performance in middle-distance runners. Middle- and long-distance runners did not differ significantly in values for the meas- ured skinfolds, circumferences and lengths (Table 2). The only exception was lower leg length which was significantly longer in the middle-distance runners. The studied groups did not differ significantly in total body, upper and lower leg fat mass and fat- free mass. Correlation analysis showed that the run- ning performance (IAAF points) in middle- distance runners was significantly related to lower leg mass to upper leg mass ratio (r=.67) and total body lean mass (r=.61) from the anthropometric and body composition pa- rameters. All other relationships between the running performance and the measured variables were not significant in middle-dis- tance runners. In contrast, there were no pa- rameters from the measured and calculated anthropometric and body composition vari- ables that were significantly related to run- ning performance in long-distance runners. From the calculated length proportions, only lower leg to body length ratio (Table 3) differentiated significantly between the middle- and long-distance runners. However, there were no differences in body mass proportions between the middle- and
no pa- rameters from the measured and calculated anthropometric and body composition vari- ables that were significantly related to run- ning performance in long-distance runners. From the calculated length proportions, only lower leg to body length ratio (Table 3) differentiated significantly between the middle- and long-distance runners. However, there were no differences in body mass proportions between the middle- and long- distance runners. In the long-distance group, upper leg to body length ratio was correlated with performance (r=0.59). Linear regression analyses indicated that the anthropometric variables (Adj R 2 =.41) predicted running performance better than the physiological variables (Adj R 2 =.33) in middle- distance runners (Table 4). Therefore, lower leg mass to upper leg mass ratio appeared to be the best predictor of running performance in middle- distance runners. However, the total time on a treadmill characterized 36% of the variance in running performance in long-distance runners, while there were no anthropometric parameters or indices to predict the running performance in long- distance runners (Table 4). Subsequently binary logistic regression was used to find out which indices were important to categorize athletes as either middle- or long-distance runners. The constructed model showed that VO 2maxtime (OR=1.01, 95% CI Table 2. Anthropometric and body composition parameters in the middle-distance (MD) and long-distance (LD) runners (mean ± s) MD (n=20) LD (n=20)Cohen’s Skinfolds (mm) Triceps 5.4±1.9 4.3±1.4 0.66 Subscapular 6.6±0.9 6.0±1.3 0.54 Iliac crest 7.0 ± 2 . 26.3±1.0 0.41 Abdominal 7.6 ± 2 . 46.1±1.7 0.72 Front thigh 6.3±1.8 6.9±2.2 0.30 Medial calf 4.1± 2. 24.0±2.5 0.04 Sum of 6 skinfolds 35.5±8.3 3 3 . 4±7.60.26 Circumferences (cm) Arm (relaxed) 27.6 ±1. 826.5±1.8 0.61 Waist 75.1±3.2 74.3±3.0 0.26 Upper leg (thigh) 5 3.1± 2.751.8±1.4 0.60 Mid-thigh 50.9±2.9 49.5±1.6 0.60 Lower leg (calf) 37. 3 ±1.736.4±1.2 0.54 Ankle 24.6±3.4 22.8±0.9 0.72 Lengths (cm) Total leg length 92.7±4.1 89.3±5.7 0.68 Upper leg (thigh) length 52.5±2.9 51.3±3.6 0.37 Lower leg (calf) length 39.9 ± 2.138.0±2.5* 0.82 Body composition Total body fat mass (kg) 5.8±1.6 5.3±1.3 0.34 Lean body mass (kg) 61.9±5.3 6 0. 2± 6.10.30 Upper leg fat mass (kg) 1.5±0.5 1.2±0.5 0.60
leg (calf) 37. 3 ±1.736.4±1.2 0.54 Ankle 24.6±3.4 22.8±0.9 0.72 Lengths (cm) Total leg length 92.7±4.1 89.3±5.7 0.68 Upper leg (thigh) length 52.5±2.9 51.3±3.6 0.37 Lower leg (calf) length 39.9 ± 2.138.0±2.5* 0.82 Body composition Total body fat mass (kg) 5.8±1.6 5.3±1.3 0.34 Lean body mass (kg) 61.9±5.3 6 0. 2± 6.10.30 Upper leg fat mass (kg) 1.5±0.5 1.2±0.5 0.60 Upper leg fat (%) 13.1±4.4 10.8±3.8 0.56 Upper leg lean tissue (kg)9.4±1.1 9.5±0.8 0.10 Upper leg total mass (kg)11.3±1.2 11.2±1.0 0.09 Lower leg fat mass (kg) 0.3±0.2 0.3±0.1 0.00 Lower leg fat (%) 6.6±3.0 5.7±2.2 0.34 Lower leg lean tissue (kg)3.7±0.3 3.7±0.3 0.00 Lower leg total mass (kg)4.4±0.4 4.2±0.3 0.57 Total leg total mass (kg)15.7±1.4 15.4±1.2 0.23 Note. *p<.05 significant differences between the middle-distance and long-distance runners
Kinesiology 45(2013) 2:154-162Mooses, M. et al.: ANTHROPOMETRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ... 158 Table 3. Proportions of body masses and lengths in the middle-distance (MD) and long-distance (LD) runners (mean ± s) MD (n=20) LD (n=20) Cohen’s Proportions of body masses Leg/body mass (%) 22.3±0.5 22.4±0.9 0.14 Upper leg/body mass (%) 16.0±0.5 16.1± 0.9 0.14 Lower leg/body mass (%) 6.2±0.5 6.1± 0.30.24 Lower leg/upper leg mass (%) 39.0±3.6 3 8.1± 2.70.28 Proportions of body lengths Leg/body length (%) 51.1±1.7 49.7±2.3 0.69 Upper leg/body length (%) 8.9±1.3 28.6±1.6 0.21 Lower leg/body length (%) 22.0±0.9 21.2±1.0* 0.84 Lower leg/upper leg length (%) 76.7±3.9 74.3±3.6 0.64 E/T ratio a 0.77±0.21 0.82±0.24 0.22 Note. *p<.05 significant differences between the middle-distance and long- distance runners. a Extremity (triceps, front thigh, medial calf)/trunk (subscapular, iliac crest, abdominal) skinfold ratio. Table 4. Results of linear regressions to predict the middle- and long-distance performance (IAAF points) MIDDLE-DISTANCE Model 1 B SE β t p Lower leg/upper leg mass (%)-18.69 5.38 -.67-3.48.00 Constant 1547.62210.47 7. 3 5.00 R 2 .45 Adj R 2 .41 SE 7 7.71 F(df n,df d) 12.08 Model 2 B SE β t p VT 2time (sec) a 0.20 0.08 .57 2.60 .02 Constant 631.4179.90 7. 9 0.00 R 2 .57 Adj R 2 .33 SE 73.57 F(df n,df d) 6.73 LONG-DISTANCE Model 1 B SE β t p tTotal (sec) b 0.41 0.13 .63 3.27.005 Constant 162.30202.54 0.80.435 R 2 .40 Adj R 2 .36 SE 66.20 F(df n,df d) 10.69 Note. a Second ventilatory threshold time. b Total time on treadmill. 1.001-1.012) and age (OR=1.57; 95% CI 1.065-2.310) classified athletes according to their specialties. The subsequent discriminant analyses confirmed that these variables were sufficient to produce a function that would predict the specialty of athletes (Wilks’ l=.613; c 2 =15.17; p=.00). Discussion and conclusions This study was done to deter- mine and compare the specific an- thropometric and body composition parameters together with the select- ed physiological values that were hy- pothesized to predict the probability of being either a middle- or a long- distance runner. In this study there were no sig- nificant differences
Description
The study identifies anthropometric factors influencing running performance in national-level athletes.