ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Physiological profile of adult male long-distance trail runners: variations according to competitive level (national or regional).
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pacing Variation in Multistage Ultramarathons: Internet-Based Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Study of the Kinetics of the Determinants of Performance During a Mountain Ultramarathon: Multidisciplinary Protocol of the First Trail Scientifique de Clécy 2021.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Effects of Ultratrail Running on Neuromuscular Function, Muscle Damage and Hydration Status. Differences According to Training Level.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- An Analysis of Participation and Performance of 2067 100-km Ultra-Marathons Worldwide.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and identify the importance of different indicators of the aerobic and anaerobic fitness of male ultra-trail runners according to their level of participation (regional or national).
methodsForty-four male ultra-trail runners were assessed (36.5±7.2 years). They were classified as regional (n=25) and national (n=19). Wingate test was used to assess the anaerobic pathway. A progressive incremental running test was performed and ventilatory thresholds registered, in parallel to heart rate and lactate concentration at the end of the protocol. Comparison between groups was performed using independent samples t-test.
resultsNo significant differences were found between outputs derived from Wingate test. For aerobic fitness, while examining absolute values, differences were uniquely significant for the second ventilatory threshold (ultra-trail regional runners: 3.78±0.32L.min-1; ultra-trail national runners: 4.03±0.40L.min-1 p<0.05). Meantime, when aerobic fitness was expressed per unit of body mass, differences were significant for the second ventilatory threshold (ultra-trail regional runners: 50.75±6.23mL.kg-1.min-1; ultra-trail national runners: 57.88±4.64mL.kg-1.min-1 p<0.05) and also maximum volume of oxygen (ultra-trail regional runners: 57.33±7.66mL.kg-1.min-1; ultra-trail national runners: 63.39±4.26mL.kg-1.min-1 p<0.05).
conclusionThis study emphasized the importance of expressing physiological variables derived from running protocols per unit of body mass. Also, the second ventilatory threshold appears to be the best and the only aerobic fitness variable to distinguish between trail runners according to competitive level. Maximal oxygen uptake seems of relative interest to distinguish between long distance runners according to competitive level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.