Similarities and differences in anthropometry and training between recreational male 100-km ultra-marathoners and marathoners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent investigations showed that the best marathon time of an individual athlete is also a strong predictor variable for the race time in a 100-km ultra-marathon. We investigated similarities and differences in anthropometry and training characteristics between 166 100-km ultra-marathoners and 126 marathoners in recreational male athletes. The association of anthropometric variables and training characteristics with race time was assessed by using bi- and multi-variate analysis. Regarding anthropometry, the marathoners had a significantly lower calf circumference (P < 0.05) and a significantly thicker skinfold at pectoral (P < 0.01), axilla (P < 0.05), and suprailiacal sites (P < 0.05) compared to the ultra-marathoners. Considering training characteristics, the marathoners completed significantly fewer hours (P < 0.001) and significantly fewer kilometres (P < 0.001) during the week, but they were running significantly faster during training (P < 0.001). The multi-variate analysis showed that age (P < 0.0001), body mass (P = 0.011), and percent body fat (P = 0.019) were positively and weekly running kilometres (P < 0.0001) were negatively related to 100-km race times in the ultra-marathoners. In the marathoners, percent body fat (P = 0.002) was positively and speed in running training (P < 0.0001) was negatively associated with marathon race times. In conclusion, these data suggest that performance in both marathoners and 100-km ultra-marathoners is inversely related to body fat. Moreover, marathoners rely more on speed in running during training whereas ultra-marathoners rely on volume in running training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".