Variability of competitive performance of distance runners

Hopkins, William G.; Hewson, David

doi:10.1097/00005768-200109000-00023

Cited by 169 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CV sets the benchmark for the smallest worthwhile change in an athlete's performance and for the typical (standard) error of measurement of tests used to assess the smallest important or worthwhile change (24). Our CV of ~2.0% at the start of the competitions and ~1.5% at the end are in line with the 1.5-1.7% reported by Hopkins and Hewson (23) and were the basis of using a ±0.5% threshold value for beneficial and harmful effects on performance (approximately 0.3 of the within-subject standard deviation top athletes show between competitions (23,24). Accordingly, there were substantial beneficial mean effects on competition performance for the female training groups compared to controls (-1.2 ±1.3%), whereas resistance training for males proved to be possibly harmful (0.5 ±1.2%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Effects of Resistance Training on Running Economy and Cross-country Performance

Barnes

Hopkins

McGuigan

et al. 2013

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Heavy-resistance training and plyometric training offer distinct physiological and neuromuscular adaptations that could enhance running economy and consequently distancerunning performance. To date no studies have examined the effect of combining the two modes of training on running economy or performance. Methods Fifty collegiate male and female cross-country runners performed a 5-km time-trial and a series of laboratory-based tests to determine aerobic, anthropometric, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics.Thereafter, each athlete participated in a season of 6-8 collegiate cross-country races over 13 weeks. After the first four weeks, athletes were randomly assigned to either heavy-resistance or plyometric plus heavy-resistance training. Five days after completing their final competition, runners repeated the same set of laboratory tests. We also estimated effects of the intervention on competition performance throughout the season using athletes of other teams as controls.Results Heavy-resistance training produced small-moderate improvements in peak speed, running economy and neuromuscular characteristics relative to plyometric resistance training, whereas changes in biomechanical measures favored plyometric resistance training. Males made less gains than females in most tests. Both treatments had possibly harmful effects on competition times in males (mean 0.5%; 90% confidence limits ±1.2%), but there may have been benefit for some individuals. Both treatments were likely beneficial for all females (-1.2%; ±1.3%), but heavy-resistance was possibly better than plyometric resistance training. ConclusionThe changes in laboratory-based parameters related to distance-running performance were consistent with the changes in competition times for females but only partly for males. Our data indicate that females should include heavy-resistance training in their programs, but males

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Effects of Resistance Training on Running Economy and Cross-country Performance

Barnes

Hopkins

McGuigan

et al. 2013

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a similar protocol to Albertus et al [29] , accurate, premature and delayed distance feedback were provided to untrained participants during 6 km treadmill TT's. In the delayed feedback trial, participants maintained a faster running velocity for longer, which enabled a 5% faster completion time, which although not statistically significant, is double the 2.5% difference deemed to be represent a meaningful change in TT performance [54] . However, this difference was in comparison to a blind feedback condition and not the accurate feedback condition, thereby supporting Albertus et al's [29] results and the perhaps more significant role of correct duration knowledge.…”

Section: Discontinuous Verbal Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 74%

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Deception on Pacing Strategy and Performance: A Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of an optimal pacing strategy during exercise is to enhance performance whilst ensuring physiological limits are not surpassed, which has been shown to result in a metabolic reserve at the end of the exercise. There has been debate surrounding the theoretical models that have been proposed to explain how pace is regulated, with more recent research investigating a central control of exercise regulation. Deception has recently emerged as a common, practical approach to manipulate key variables during exercise. There are a number of ways in which deception interventions have been designed, each intending to gain particular insights into pacing behaviour and performance. Deception methodologies can be conceptualised according to a number of dimensions such as deception timing (prior to or during exercise); presentation frequency (blind, discontinuous or continuous); and type of deception (performance, biofeedback or environmental feedback). However research evidence on the effects of deception has been perplexing and the use of complex designs and varied methodologies makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about how pacing strategy and performance are affected by deception.This review examines existing research in the area of deception and pacing strategies, and provides a critical appraisal of the different methodological approaches used to date. It is hoped that this critical analysis will inform the direction and methodology of future investigations in this area by addressing the mechanisms through which deception impacts upon performance and by elucidating the potential application of deception techniques in training and competitive settings.

show abstract

“…If the smallest worthwhile difference in EP that matters to athletes is 0.5-1.5% (40,41,78,90), the present results suggest that 81-95% of the time the true effect of GIH on EP should be practically important (i.e., greater than the 0.5-1.5% level). We determined that 8 unpublished studies comparing the effect of GIH and WIH on EP would be required to reduce the ES of 0.3 to a trivial ES of 0.10.…”

Section: Measurement Of Epmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…In fact, both the percentage change in EP (2.62%) and its accompanying ES (0.35) were statistically significant. More to the point, it was observed that 81-95% of the time GIH should be associated with a small but nevertheless practically important improvement in EP if one assumes that the smallest worthwhile enhancement in performance that matters to athletes is on the order of 0.5-1.5% (40,41,78,90). One must take into account, however, that those results are derived from the data set of only 4 studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Glycerol-Induced Hyperhydration on Fluid Retention and Endurance Performance

Goulet

Aubertin‐Leheudre²,

Plante³

et al. 2007

International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors determined, through a meta-analytic approach, whether glycerolinduced hyperhydration (GIH) enhances fluid retention and increases endurance performance (EP) significantly more than water-induced hyperhydration (WIH). Collectively, studies administered 23.9 ± 2.7 mL of fluid/kg body weight (BW) with 1.1 ± 0.2 g glycerol/kg BW, and hyperhydration was measured 136 ± 15 min after its onset. Compared with WIH, GIH increased fluid retention by 7.7 ± 2.8 mL/kg BW (P < 0.01; pooled effect size [PES]: 1.64 ± 0.80, P < 0.01, N = 14). The use of GIH was associated with an improvement in EP of 2.62% ± 1.60% (P = 0.047; PES: 0.35 ± 0.13, P = 0.014, N = 4). Unarguably, GIH significantly enhances fluid retention better than WIH. Because of the dearth of data, the effect of GIH on EP must be further investigated before more definitive conclusions can be drawn as to its ergogenic property.Key Words: overhydration, dehydration, exercise capacity, ergogenic aid, cardiovascular function, thermoregulatory function On exercise initiation the metabolism increases severalfold to match the increased energy demand of the working muscles. Human beings are relatively inefficient at producing movements-only 25% of the energy produced is directly used for locomotion while the remainder 75% is lost as heat (9). Hence, core temperature increases during exercise (56). To avoid hyperthermia, the body eliminates most of the excess body heat through the production and evaporation of sweat, although convection and radiation can participate to the process to a much lesser extent. The rate of sweat production during exercise depends on a variety of factors such as exercise intensity (85), environmental conditions (85), training state (10), degree of heat acclimatization (14), and clothing worn (87). In temperate (20-25 °C) (4,11,18,29,30) and hot (>30 °C) (38, 59, 60) ambient conditions sweat rates in Scholarly reviewS

show abstract

Variability of competitive performance of distance runners

Cited by 169 publications

References 6 publications

Effects of Resistance Training on Running Economy and Cross-country Performance

Effects of Resistance Training on Running Economy and Cross-country Performance

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Deception on Pacing Strategy and Performance: A Review

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Glycerol-Induced Hyperhydration on Fluid Retention and Endurance Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About