Analysis of over 1 million race records shows runners from East African countries as the fastest in 50-km ultra-marathons.

The 50-km ultra-marathon is a popular race distance, slightly longer than the classic marathon distance. However, little is known about the country of affiliation and age of the fastest 50-km ultra-marathon runners and where the fastest races are typically held. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate a large dataset of race records for the 50-km distance race to identify the country of affiliation and the age of the fastest runners as well as the locations of the fastest races. A total of 1,398,845 50-km race records (men, n = 1,026,546; women, n = 372,299) were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and advanced regression techniques. This study revealed significant trends in the performance of 50-km ultra-marathoners. The fastest 50-km runners came from African countries, while the fastest races were found to occur in Europe and the Middle East. Runners from Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, and Kenya were the fastest in this race distance. The fastest 50-km racecourses, providing ideal conditions for faster race times, are in Europe (Luxembourg, Belarus, and Lithuania) and the Middle East (Qatar and Jordan). Surprisingly, the fastest ultra-marathoners in the 50-km distance were found to fall into the age group of 20-24 years, challenging the conventional belief that peak ultra-marathon performance comes in older age groups. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the performance models in 50-km ultra-marathons and can serve as valuable insights for runners, coaches, and race organizers in optimizing training strategies and racecourse selection.

Generalization of Muscle Strength Capacities as Assessed From Different Variables, Tests, and Muscle Groups.

Cuk, I, Prebeg, G, Sreckovic, S, Mirkov, DM, and Jaric, S. Generalization of muscle strength capacities as assessed from different variables, tests, and muscle groups. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 305-312, 2017-The muscle strength capacities to exert force under various movement conditions have been indiscriminately assessed from various strength tests and variables applied on different muscles. We tested the hypotheses that the distinctive strength capacities would be revealed (H1) through different strength tests, and (H2) through different strength variables. Alternatively, (H3) all strength variables independent of the selected test could depict the same strength capacity of the tested muscle. Sixty subjects performed both the standard strength test and the test of alternating contractions of 6 pairs of antagonistic muscles acting in different leg and arm joints. The dependent variables obtained from each test and muscle were the maximum isometric force and the rate of force development. A confirmatory principle component analysis set to 2 factors explained 31.9% of the total variance. The factor loadings discerned between the tested arm and leg muscles, but not between the strength tests and variables. An exploratory analysis applied on the same data revealed 6 factors that explained 60.1% of the total variance. Again, the individual factors were mainly loaded by different tests and variables obtained from the same pair of antagonistic muscles. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the muscle strength capacity of the tested individual should be based on a single strength test and variable obtained from a number of different muscles, than on a single muscle tested through different tests and variables. The selected muscles should act in different limbs and joints, while the maximum isometric force should be the variable of choice.

Selective Effects of Training Against Weight and Inertia on Muscle Mechanical Properties.

PURPOSE: To explore the effects of training against mechanically different types of loads on muscle force (F), velocity (V), and power (P) outputs. METHODS: Subjects practiced maximum bench throws over 8 wk against a bar predominantly loaded by approximately constant external force (weight), weight plates (weight plus inertia), or weight plates whose weight was compensated by a constant external force pulling upward (inertia). Instead of a typically applied single trial performed against a selected load, the pretest and posttest consisted of the same task performed against 8 different loads ranging from 30% to 79% of the subject's maximum strength applied by adding weight plates to the bar. That provided a range of F and V data for subsequent modeling by linear F-V regression revealing the maximum F (F-intercept), V (V-intercept), and P (P = FV/4). RESULTS: Although all 3 training conditions resulted in increased P, the inertia type of the training load could be somewhat more effective than weight. An even more important finding was that the P increase could be almost exclusively based on a gain in F, V, or both when weight, inertia, or weight-plus-inertia training load were applied, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The inertia training load is more effective than weight in increasing P and weight and inertia may be applied for selective gains in F and V, respectively, whereas the linear F-V model obtained from loaded trials could be used for discerning among muscle F, V, and P.

Evaluation of force-velocity and power-velocity relationship of arm muscles.

PURPOSE: A number of recent studies have revealed an approximately linear force-velocity (F-V) and, consequently, a parabolic power-velocity (P-V) relationship of multi-joint tasks. However, the measurement characteristics of their parameters have been neglected, particularly those regarding arm muscles, which could be a problem for using the linear F-V model in both research and routine testing. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to evaluate the strength, shape, reliability, and concurrent validity of the F-V relationship of arm muscles. METHODS: Twelve healthy participants performed maximum bench press throws against loads ranging from 20 to 70 % of their maximum strength, and linear regression model was applied on the obtained range of F and V data. One-repetition maximum bench press and medicine ball throw tests were also conducted. RESULTS: The observed individual F-V relationships were exceptionally strong (r = 0.96-0.99; all P < 0.05) and fairly linear, although it remains unresolved whether a polynomial fit could provide even stronger relationships. The reliability of parameters obtained from the linear F-V regressions proved to be mainly high (ICC > 0.80), while their concurrent validity regarding directly measured F, P, and V ranged from high (for maximum F) to medium-to-low (for maximum P and V). CONCLUSIONS: The findings add to the evidence that the linear F-V and, consequently, parabolic P-V models could be used to study the mechanical properties of muscular systems, as well as to design a relatively simple, reliable, and ecologically valid routine test of the muscle ability of force, power, and velocity production.