Sleep habits and strategies of ultramarathon runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among factors impacting performance during an ultramarathon, sleep is an underappreciated factor that has received little attention. The aims of this study were to characterize habitual sleep behaviors in ultramarathon runners and to examine strategies they use to manage sleep before and during ultramarathons. Responses from 636 participants to a questionnaire were considered. This population was found to sleep more on weekends and holidays (7-8 h to 8-9 h) than during weekdays (6-7 h to 7-8 h; p < 0.001). Work was a mediator of napping habits since 19-25% reported napping on work days and 37-56% on non-work days. There were 24.5% of the participants reporting sleep disorders, with more women (38.9%) reporting sleep problems than men (22.0%; p < 0.005). Mean (±SD) sleepiness score on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale was 8.9 ± 4.3 with 37.6% of respondents scoring higher than 10, reflecting excessive daytime sleepiness. Most of the study participants (73.9%) had a strategy to manage sleep preceding an ultramarathon, with 54.7% trying to increase their opportunities for sleep. Only 21% of participants reported that they had a strategy to manage sleep during ultramarathons, with micronaps being the most common strategy specified. Sub-analyses from 221 responses indicated that sleep duration during an ultramarathon was correlated with finish time for races lasting 36-60 h (r = 0.48; p < 0.01) or > 60 h (r = 0.44; p < 0.001). We conclude that sleep duration among ultramarathon runners was comparable to the general population and other athletic populations, yet they reported a lower prevalence of sleep disorders. Daytime sleepiness was among the lowest rates encountered in athletic populations, which may be related to the high percentage of nappers in our population. Sleep extension, by increasing sleep time at night and daytime napping, was the main sleep strategy to prepare for ultramarathons.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".