ABSTRACT
Psychological variables such as motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety have been widely studied in marathon runners, usually within the framework of Bandura's theory of self-efficacy. It is also assumed a link between self-perceived fitness and physiological performance parameters such as speed at ventilatory thresholds and running economy. The purpose of this paper is to describe longitudinal trends of self-perceptions and examine their link to physiological performance parameters over time. Sixteen healthy recreational marathoners (8 males and 8 females), aged M = 37.6 (SD = 3.9) who were about to participate in a major marathon agreed to participate. After 3 months of regular training and competition in shorter distances, all participants trained during a 16-week macrocycle under the supervision of the same coaching staff. At 4-week intervals, the participants responded five times the Podium questionnaire, measuring self-perceived psychological state relative to the upcoming race, and performed five exercise performance parameters tests. Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze the trends and associations. In general, Podium questionnaire scores were within the standard range, with the lowest values at the beginning and the highest values closer to race day. Although only perceived fitness (p < 0.001, Cohen's f 2 = 1.19) and somatic anxiety (p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.32) showed large effect sizes for the whole longitudinal period, other partial increases were found between time points. All physiological performance parameters presented significant improvements over time (Aerobic Threshold speed, p < 0.001, f 2 = 1.04; Anaerobic Threshold speed, p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.498; Running Economy in VO2, p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.349; Running Economy in energy, p = 0.024, f 2 = 0.197). The analysis of changes between consecutive time points revealed that improving perceived physical condition predicted improving self-efficacy (p < 0.001, f 2 = 1.33), and improvements in motivation were predicted by improvements in either self-efficacy (p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.36) or perceived physical condition (p = 0.003, f 2 = 0.17). Improvements in perceived fitness, self-efficacy and motivation were associated with small effect-size improvements (decreases) in anxiety. None of the physiological performance parameters was shown to predict changes in psychological variables, although their general trends over time correlated. The results have practical implications for sport psychologists and running coaches, supporting the need for integrated working.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare the absolute and relative training load of the Marathon (42k) and the Ironman (IM) training in recreational trained athletes. Methods: Fifteen Marathoners and Fifteen Triathletes participated in the study. Their performance level was the same relative to the sex's absolute winner at the race. No differences were presented neither in age, nor in body weight, height, BMI, running VO2max max, or endurance training experience (p > 0.05). They all trained systematically for their respective event (IM or 42k). Daily training load was recorded in a training log, and the last 16 weeks were compared. Before this, gas exchange and lactate metabolic tests were conducted in order to set individual training zones. The Objective Load Scale (ECOs) training load quantification method was applied. Differences between IM and 42k athletes' outcomes were assessed using Student's test and significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: As expected, Competition Time was significantly different (IM 11 h 45 min ± 1 h 54 min vs. 42k 3 h 6 min ± 28 min, p < 0.001). Similarly, Training Weekly Avg Time (IM 12.9 h ± 2.6 vs. 42k 5.2 ± 0.9), and Average Weekly ECOs (IM 834 ± 171 vs. 42k 526 ± 118) were significantly higher in IM (p < 0.001). However, the Ratio between Training Load and Training Time was superior for 42k runners when comparing ECOs (IM 65.8 ± 11.8 vs. 42k 99.3 ± 6.8) (p < 0.001). Finally, all ratios between training time or load vs. Competition Time were superior for 42k (p < 0.001) (Training Time/Race Time: IM 1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 1.7 ± 0.5), (ECOs Training Load/Race Time: IM 1.2 ± 0.3 vs. 42k 2.9 ± 1.0). Conclusions: In spite of IM athletes' superior training time and total or weekly training load, when comparing the ratios between training load and training time, and training time or training load vs. competition time, the preparation of a 42k showed to be harder.
