Rosado JO1,2,3,4, Duarte JA1,5, Sousa-e-Silva P2,6, Costa D2,6, Martinho D2,6, Duarte J2,6, Valente-dos-Santos J6,7,8, Sarmento H2,6, Rama L2,6, Tavares Ó3, Conde J3, Castanheira J3, Gonçalves RS3,9, Coelho-e-Silva MJ2,6
1University of Porto, Faculty of Sport, Porto, Portugal, 2University of Coimbra, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Coimbra, Portugal, 3Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra Health School, Coimbra, Portugal, 4Diocesan Caritas of Coimbra, Rainha Santa Isabel Center, Coimbra, Portugal, 5Faculty of Sport, Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure (CIAFEL), Porto, Portugal, 6University of Coimbra, Research Unity for Sport and Physical Activity (CIDAF), Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Coimbra, Portugal, 7University of Coimbra, Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Life Sciences (IBILI), Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal, 8Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Lisbon, Portugal, 9University of Coimbra, Centre for Health Studies and Research, Coimbra, Portugal
Background: The performance and health of ultra-trail runners is potentially influenced by the morphologic and physiologic characteristics, including a variety of central and peripheral determinants. A broader understanding of the aerobic fitness and anaerobic capacity of the ultra-trail runners, including the differences between recreational and competitive athletes, might be useful in the context of sports training and physical therapy.
Purpose: The aim of current study was to characterize the aerobic fitness and the anaerobic capacity of Portuguese ultra-trail runners and to compare the athletes according to their level of practice (recreational vs. competitive).
Methods: A sample of 44 male ultra-trail runners (57% recreational group: 38.8 ± 8.2 years of chronological age, 3.9 ± 3.0 years of training experience; 43% competitive group: n=19, 33.5 ± 4.1 years of chronological age, 4.1 ± 2.6 years of training experience) was assessed using two physiological laboratory tests. The incremental treadmill running test was used to measure aerobic fitness and the Wingate test was used to measure anaerobic capacity. The independent samples t-test was used to statistically analyze the difference between the two groups.
Results: No differences between the groups were found for years of training experience (p>0.05), but competitive athletes had a lower mean chronological age (recreational: 38.8 ± 8.2 years vs. competitive: 33.5 ± 4.1 years, p 0.01). Statistically significant differences were obtained during the incremental treadmill running test for the following variables: second ventilatory threshold (recreational: 3.78 ± 0.32 L.min-1 vs. competitive: 4.03 ± 0.40 L.min-1, p=0.03; recreational: 50.75 ± 6.23 mL.kg-1.min-1 vs. competitive: 57.88 ± 4.64 mL.kg-1.min-1, p 0.01) and peak oxygen uptake (recreational: 57.33 ± 7.66 mL.kg-1.min-1 vs. competitive: 63.39 ± 4.26 mL.kg-1.min-1, p 0.01). No other differences between the groups were found for the remaining aerobic fitness variables (p>0.05), including heart rate, respiratory exchange ratio and blood lactate concentration. No differences between the groups were also found for the anaerobic capacity variables: WAnT peak and mean power (p>0.05).
Conclusion(s): The competitive group of athletes was younger, although it had the same years of training experience as the recreational group. The competitive group had a higher aerobic fitness (second ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen uptake). The competitive runners seem to show a better central response to prolonged exercise. The anaerobic capacity was similar between the groups. Both groups seem to demonstrate the same ability to respond to an all-out exhaustive effort. It is likely that the differences between the groups can be explained, at least partially, by the higher demands of training and competition to which the competitive athletes are exposed. Nevertheless, ultra-trail runners with different levels of practice have to be prepared to finish the same long-distance races, even with different sports results.
Implications: Sports training and physical therapy interventions for ultra-trail runners with different levels of practice must take into consideration that there are differences in aerobic fitness, which can be potentially modifiable through an appropriate exercise prescription.
Keywords: Aerobic fitness, anaerobic capacity, ultra-trail runners
Funding acknowledgements: The work was unfunded.
Purpose: The aim of current study was to characterize the aerobic fitness and the anaerobic capacity of Portuguese ultra-trail runners and to compare the athletes according to their level of practice (recreational vs. competitive).
Methods: A sample of 44 male ultra-trail runners (57% recreational group: 38.8 ± 8.2 years of chronological age, 3.9 ± 3.0 years of training experience; 43% competitive group: n=19, 33.5 ± 4.1 years of chronological age, 4.1 ± 2.6 years of training experience) was assessed using two physiological laboratory tests. The incremental treadmill running test was used to measure aerobic fitness and the Wingate test was used to measure anaerobic capacity. The independent samples t-test was used to statistically analyze the difference between the two groups.
Results: No differences between the groups were found for years of training experience (p>0.05), but competitive athletes had a lower mean chronological age (recreational: 38.8 ± 8.2 years vs. competitive: 33.5 ± 4.1 years, p 0.01). Statistically significant differences were obtained during the incremental treadmill running test for the following variables: second ventilatory threshold (recreational: 3.78 ± 0.32 L.min-1 vs. competitive: 4.03 ± 0.40 L.min-1, p=0.03; recreational: 50.75 ± 6.23 mL.kg-1.min-1 vs. competitive: 57.88 ± 4.64 mL.kg-1.min-1, p 0.01) and peak oxygen uptake (recreational: 57.33 ± 7.66 mL.kg-1.min-1 vs. competitive: 63.39 ± 4.26 mL.kg-1.min-1, p 0.01). No other differences between the groups were found for the remaining aerobic fitness variables (p>0.05), including heart rate, respiratory exchange ratio and blood lactate concentration. No differences between the groups were also found for the anaerobic capacity variables: WAnT peak and mean power (p>0.05).
Conclusion(s): The competitive group of athletes was younger, although it had the same years of training experience as the recreational group. The competitive group had a higher aerobic fitness (second ventilatory threshold and peak oxygen uptake). The competitive runners seem to show a better central response to prolonged exercise. The anaerobic capacity was similar between the groups. Both groups seem to demonstrate the same ability to respond to an all-out exhaustive effort. It is likely that the differences between the groups can be explained, at least partially, by the higher demands of training and competition to which the competitive athletes are exposed. Nevertheless, ultra-trail runners with different levels of practice have to be prepared to finish the same long-distance races, even with different sports results.
Implications: Sports training and physical therapy interventions for ultra-trail runners with different levels of practice must take into consideration that there are differences in aerobic fitness, which can be potentially modifiable through an appropriate exercise prescription.
Keywords: Aerobic fitness, anaerobic capacity, ultra-trail runners
Funding acknowledgements: The work was unfunded.
Topic: Sport & sports injuries; Human movement analysis; Cardiorespiratory
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Ethics committee: Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Sport, University of Porto
Ethics number: CEFADE 17.2017
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
