Behavioral risk profile of marathon runners

Although long distance running clearly has benefits--as witnessed by its popularity--it also has risks of injury and death. Little is known, however, about the prevalence of potentially dangerous training habits in long distance runners, although anecdotal information suggests that many runners have erroneous beliefs about risks and benefits of marathon running. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence of 19 potentially dangerous training habits (risky behaviors) among marathon runners. A 66-item self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of runners who finished of the 1992 Houston-Tenneco Marathon and were 21-71 years of age. Responses were obtained from 508 runners (83%) with approximately equal representation in four age-gender groups: men $<$40 years, men $\ge$40 years, women $<$40 years, and women $\ge$40 years.^ Prevalences of risky behaviors were high. 50% or more ran in dangerously hot and humid conditions, did not cool down or stretch after running, did not wear proper running gear, or ran when injured or ill; 25-49% did not warm up, ran on dangerous surfaces, did not drink sufficient water during training, increased weekly mileage too quickly, and ran during lightning storms; 10-24% ran daily, ran in areas with high pollution, ran in the same direction as traffic, did hard runs frequently, ran more than 60 miles per week, or ran against the advice of a physician.^ Positive associations were found between the practice of risky behaviors and self-reported prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries, heat-related injuries, noncompliance with recommendations for preventive health examinations, and noncompliance with positive health habits.^ These results indicate that many marathon runners engage in training habits that may increase risk of substantial injury or illness. Further studies are needed to explore the association of risky training behaviors on the incidence of injuries, and to determine reasons for noncompliance with recommendations from sports medicine specialists. ^

Chronicles of Bow street police-office : with an account of the magistrates, "runners", and police, and a selection of the most interesting cases /

Mode of access: Internet.

Continuous glucose monitoring in diabetic long distance runners

Marathon running is growing in popularity, and many diabetic patients are participating in various marathon races all over the world each year. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and extent of glycemic excursions (hypo- and hyperglycemic) during a marathon run in patients with well-controlled diabetes mellitus using a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Five subjects with type 1 and one patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus were monitored with the Medtronic MiniMed CGMS during the 2002 Vienna City Marathon (n = 3) or the Fernwarme run (n = 3) long distance runs of 42.19/15.8 km. All six patients finished their course. The CGSM system was well tolerated in all patients over an average duration of 34 +/- 4.0 hours and it did not limit the patients' activities. The mean running time for the Vienna city marathon was 257 +/- 8 min (247 to 274 min) and for the Fernwarme run 134 +/- 118 min (113 to 150 min). A total of 1470 blood glucose measurements (mean 245 readings per subject) were performed. During and after the marathons frequent hypo and hyperglycemic episodes with and without clinical symptoms were measured. Our data confirm that the CGMS may help to identify asymptomatic hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia during and after a long distance run. The system may also be helpful to improve our understanding about the individual changes of glucose during and after a marathon and may protect hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic periods in future races.

Does core strength training influence kinetic efficiency, lower extremity stability, and 5000m performance in runners?

Context: Core strength training (CST) has been popular in the fitness industry for a decade. Although strong core muscles are believed to enhance athletic performance, only few scientific studies have been conducted to identify the effectiveness of CST on improving athletic performance. Objective: Identify the effects of a 6-wk CST on running kinetics, lower extremity stability, and running performance in recreational and competitive runners. Design and Setting: A test-retest, randomized control design was used to assess the effect of CST and no CST on ground reaction force (GRF), lower extremity stability scores, and running performance. Participants: Twenty-eight healthy adults (age, 36.9+9.4yrs, height, 168.4+9.6cm, mass, 70.1+15.3kg) were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Main outcome Measures: GRF was determined by calculating peak impact vertical GRF (vGRF), peak active vGRF, duration of the breaking or horizontal GRF (hGRF), and duration of the propulsive hGRF as measured while running across a force plate. Lower extremity stability in three directions (anterior, posterior, lateral) was assessed using the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). Running performance was determined by 5000 meter run measured on selected outdoor tracks. Six 2 (time) X 2 (condition) mixed-design ANOVA were used to determine if CST influences on each dependent variable, p < .05. Results: No significant interactions were found for any kinetic variables and SEBT score, p>.05. But 5000m run time showed significant interaction, p < .05. SEBT scores improved in both groups, but more in the experimental group. Conclusion: CST did not significantly influence kinetic efficiency and lower extremity stability, but did influence running performance.

Torch runners at International Women's Year conference in Houston

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Torch relay with last mile runners Michelle Cearcy, Billie Jean King, Peggy Kokernot, and Sylvia Ortiz at International Women's Year conference in Houston

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Runners during Houston International Women's Year

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

A Computer Model of Drafting Effects on Collective Behavior in Elite 10,000 m Runners

Purpose Drafting in cycling influences collective behaviour of pelotons. Whilst evidence for collective behaviour in competitive running events exists, it is not clear if this results from energetic savings conferred by drafting. This study modelled the effects of drafting on behavior in elite 10,000 m runners. Methods Using performance data from a men’s elite 10,000 m track running event, computer simulations were constructed using Netlogo 5.1 to test the effects of three different drafting quantities on collective behaviour: no drafting, drafting to 3m behind with up to ~8% energy savings (a realistic running draft); and drafting up to 3m behind with up to 38% energy savings (a realistic cycling draft). Three measures of collective behaviour were analysed in each condition; mean speed, mean group stretch (distance between first and last placed runner), and Runner Convergence Ratio (RCR) which represents the degree of drafting benefit obtained by the follower in a pair of coupled runners. Results Mean speeds were 6.32±0.28m.s-1, 5.57±0.18 m.s-1, and 5.51±0.13 m.s-1 in the cycling draft, runner draft, and no draft conditions respectively (all P<0.001). RCR was lower in the cycling draft condition, but did not differ between the other two. Mean stretch did not differ between conditions. Conclusions Collective behaviours observed in running events cannot be fully explained through energetic savings conferred by realistic drafting benefits. They may therefore result from other, possibly psychological, processes. The benefits or otherwise of engaging in such behavior are, as yet, unclear.