Fysioterapeuten
27.02.2019
Introduction
During the last four decades there has been an increasing interest in running as a form of physical activity in the western world (1). The primary reason reported for regularly practicing running is health and wellbeing (2, 3). The most popular race distances in the U.S.A. in 2016 were 5,000 m (8.2 million finishers; 49% of all finishers), 10,000 m (7% of all finishers), half-marathon (11% of all finishers) and marathon (507,600 finishers; 3% of all finishers). Female runners were reported to account for 57% of all finishers in 2017 (4).
In Norway, there has been a substantial increase in the number of participants in half-marathon competitions over time. The largest marathon and half-marathon competition in Norway is the BMW Oslo Marathon. In 1981, 1,336 competitors finished the half-marathon and 642 finished the marathon. By comparison, in 2016 there were 8,007 and 2,399 finishers of the half- and full marathon, respectively (5). The larger number of finishers in the half-marathon distances compared to marathon could be explained by the extreme demands of the marathon compared to half-marathon (6). Studies have shown that high maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a prerequisite for a good performance in long distance running (7, 8). Furthermore, better running economy (RE), combined with a greater utilization of VO2max (% VO2max), has been reported in good runners compared to novice recreational runners (9, 10). These three factors (VO2max, RE and % VO2max) are reported to be the major determinants of the velocity at anaerobic threshold (vAT) (11).
A high vAT is largely achieved via a high volume of endurance training over a number of years. A review by Tjelta (12) indicates that long distance runners competing at an international level over distances from 5,000 m to the marathon distance have typically run between 150 and 260 km per week (12). Searching the databases SportDiscus and Web of Science using the terms «recreational marathon runners and training volume» and «recreational half marathon runners and training volume» only one article was found from the previous five years, which had examined the training volume of a limited number of recreational runners (13). Gordon et al. (13) investigated the training characteristics of recreational marathon runners (n=82) and reported that runners with a finishing time of >4.5 hours had an average training distance of 43.8±9.5 km per week, while those with a finishing time of 4-4.5 hours, 3.5-4 hours and 3-3.5 hours reported an average training distance of 56.2 ±14.8 km, 62.4±27.3 km and 81.5±26.0 km per week, respectively. The fastest group (2.5-3 hours) ran an average of 91.7±31.6 km per week. However, searching the abovementioned databases, no studies were found reporting the training volume of recreational runners in races up to and including half-marathon distance. As such, the purpose of this investigation was to describe the training volume and examine the relations-hip between level of performance and training characteristics of finishers competing in 10,000 m, half-marathon and marathon from the 2017 BMW Oslo Marathon event.
Methods
Participants
All participants of the BMW Oslo Marathon 2017 edition (14,600 runners) received an invitation to answer the questionnaire. To be included in the study, participants had to 1) answer 100% of the survey questions, 2) be over 16 years of age, and 3) have participated in and finished either the marathon, half-marathon or 10,000 m. In total, 2,245 runners fulfilled these criteria and were included in the study. Participants had a mean age = 42.6±11.2 years, weight = 73.4±12.8 kg, height = 175.6±9.0 cm and BMI = 23.7±3.1, and a training frequency of 3.0±1.4 times per week with a reported distance of 29.1±20.1 km per week. Of the participants, 938 were female, age 41.2±10.9 years, weight = 65.0±11.0 kg, height = 168.1±6.1 cm, BMI = 23.0±3.4, and with a training frequency of 2.8±1.2 times per week and a reported training distance of 24.3±16.5 km per week. Of the participants, 1,307 were male, age 43.7±11.4 years, weight = 79.4±10.3 kg, height = 181±6.5 cm, BMI = 24.2±2.7, and with a training frequency of 3.1±1.5 times per week with a reported training distance of 32.6±23.0 km per week. Participants were further classified according to age group and self-reported training distance (Table 1). The study was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services, and all subjects provided informed consent. To assess if the sample size in the present study was adequate and representative, the minimum number of participants for each race distance was calculated using 95% confidence intervals with a 5% margin of error (14). For the sample size to be representative, the number of participants from the marathon distance should be ≥328, halfmarathon ≥366 and 10,000 m ≥353 participants. The sample size in the current study (432 for marathon, 1241 for half-marathon and 572 for 10,000 m), was therefore adequate to maintain external validity, with 95% confidence.
Study design
A descriptive, quantitative cross-sectional research design was implemented, using a questionnaire designed to examine the participants training habits in relation to their performance in three different distances, namely; 10,000 m, half-marathon and marathon. The questionnaire had a section where participants provided demographic information, which included age (years), weight (kg), height (cm) and training frequency per week. In addition, the questionnaire contained questions to distinguish between two endurance training methods, namely; traditional, continuous training and interval training, with the corresponding training distance for both. Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate BMI. A final question asked participants to report their race results for the respective distances.
The questionnaire was transformed to a web-based survey using SurveyXact version 8.0 (15), integrated to the local university server system to insure da
Gå til medietDuring the last four decades there has been an increasing interest in running as a form of physical activity in the western world (1). The primary reason reported for regularly practicing running is health and wellbeing (2, 3). The most popular race distances in the U.S.A. in 2016 were 5,000 m (8.2 million finishers; 49% of all finishers), 10,000 m (7% of all finishers), half-marathon (11% of all finishers) and marathon (507,600 finishers; 3% of all finishers). Female runners were reported to account for 57% of all finishers in 2017 (4).
In Norway, there has been a substantial increase in the number of participants in half-marathon competitions over time. The largest marathon and half-marathon competition in Norway is the BMW Oslo Marathon. In 1981, 1,336 competitors finished the half-marathon and 642 finished the marathon. By comparison, in 2016 there were 8,007 and 2,399 finishers of the half- and full marathon, respectively (5). The larger number of finishers in the half-marathon distances compared to marathon could be explained by the extreme demands of the marathon compared to half-marathon (6). Studies have shown that high maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a prerequisite for a good performance in long distance running (7, 8). Furthermore, better running economy (RE), combined with a greater utilization of VO2max (% VO2max), has been reported in good runners compared to novice recreational runners (9, 10). These three factors (VO2max, RE and % VO2max) are reported to be the major determinants of the velocity at anaerobic threshold (vAT) (11).
A high vAT is largely achieved via a high volume of endurance training over a number of years. A review by Tjelta (12) indicates that long distance runners competing at an international level over distances from 5,000 m to the marathon distance have typically run between 150 and 260 km per week (12). Searching the databases SportDiscus and Web of Science using the terms «recreational marathon runners and training volume» and «recreational half marathon runners and training volume» only one article was found from the previous five years, which had examined the training volume of a limited number of recreational runners (13). Gordon et al. (13) investigated the training characteristics of recreational marathon runners (n=82) and reported that runners with a finishing time of >4.5 hours had an average training distance of 43.8±9.5 km per week, while those with a finishing time of 4-4.5 hours, 3.5-4 hours and 3-3.5 hours reported an average training distance of 56.2 ±14.8 km, 62.4±27.3 km and 81.5±26.0 km per week, respectively. The fastest group (2.5-3 hours) ran an average of 91.7±31.6 km per week. However, searching the abovementioned databases, no studies were found reporting the training volume of recreational runners in races up to and including half-marathon distance. As such, the purpose of this investigation was to describe the training volume and examine the relations-hip between level of performance and training characteristics of finishers competing in 10,000 m, half-marathon and marathon from the 2017 BMW Oslo Marathon event.
Methods
Participants
All participants of the BMW Oslo Marathon 2017 edition (14,600 runners) received an invitation to answer the questionnaire. To be included in the study, participants had to 1) answer 100% of the survey questions, 2) be over 16 years of age, and 3) have participated in and finished either the marathon, half-marathon or 10,000 m. In total, 2,245 runners fulfilled these criteria and were included in the study. Participants had a mean age = 42.6±11.2 years, weight = 73.4±12.8 kg, height = 175.6±9.0 cm and BMI = 23.7±3.1, and a training frequency of 3.0±1.4 times per week with a reported distance of 29.1±20.1 km per week. Of the participants, 938 were female, age 41.2±10.9 years, weight = 65.0±11.0 kg, height = 168.1±6.1 cm, BMI = 23.0±3.4, and with a training frequency of 2.8±1.2 times per week and a reported training distance of 24.3±16.5 km per week. Of the participants, 1,307 were male, age 43.7±11.4 years, weight = 79.4±10.3 kg, height = 181±6.5 cm, BMI = 24.2±2.7, and with a training frequency of 3.1±1.5 times per week with a reported training distance of 32.6±23.0 km per week. Participants were further classified according to age group and self-reported training distance (Table 1). The study was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services, and all subjects provided informed consent. To assess if the sample size in the present study was adequate and representative, the minimum number of participants for each race distance was calculated using 95% confidence intervals with a 5% margin of error (14). For the sample size to be representative, the number of participants from the marathon distance should be ≥328, halfmarathon ≥366 and 10,000 m ≥353 participants. The sample size in the current study (432 for marathon, 1241 for half-marathon and 572 for 10,000 m), was therefore adequate to maintain external validity, with 95% confidence.
Study design
A descriptive, quantitative cross-sectional research design was implemented, using a questionnaire designed to examine the participants training habits in relation to their performance in three different distances, namely; 10,000 m, half-marathon and marathon. The questionnaire had a section where participants provided demographic information, which included age (years), weight (kg), height (cm) and training frequency per week. In addition, the questionnaire contained questions to distinguish between two endurance training methods, namely; traditional, continuous training and interval training, with the corresponding training distance for both. Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate BMI. A final question asked participants to report their race results for the respective distances.
The questionnaire was transformed to a web-based survey using SurveyXact version 8.0 (15), integrated to the local university server system to insure da
