What Performance Characteristics Determine Elite Versus Nonelite Athletes in the Same Sport?

Abstract

There are significant data comparing elite and nonelite athletes in anaerobic field and court sports as well as endurance sports. This review delineates specific performance characteristics in the elite athlete and may help guide rehabilitation.
A Medline search from April 1982 to April 2012 was undertaken for articles written in English. Additional references were accrued from reference lists of research articles.
In the anaerobic athlete, maximal power production was consistently correlated to elite performance. Elite performance in the endurance athlete is more ambiguous, however, and appears to be related to the dependent variable investigated in each individual study.
In anaerobic field and court sport athletes, maximal power output is most predictive of elite performance. In the endurance athlete, however, it is not as clear. Elite endurance athletes consistently test higher than nonelite athletes in running economy, anaerobic threshold, and VO2max.

Full text

542
Lorenz et al Nov • Dec 2013
The ability to distinguish elite from nonelite athletes is
not clearly defined. Traditionally, those athletes drafted
in higher rounds or playing in higher divisions are elite.
Differentiating these levels is a multifaceted process.
Several variables have been investigated to define the
elite athlete, including anthropometric and physiologic
characteristics,2,3,33 -35,45,61,62,66,77,74,92 balance,44 the role of the
athlete on the team,11,77 length of training,45 type of performance
training,13,24,44,4 6,65 talent development and maturation,1,3 ,19,6 6,74, 88
and physical performance.7,15, 91 The multiple variables attest to
the complexity of the elite athlete.
Confounding the delineation is the question of which
performance characteristics are most predictive of success. Are
elite athletes simply of a different genetic makeup than nonelite
athletes? Can performance variables such as strength, power,
endurance, and agility be trained at a level sufficient to make
one an elite athlete?
Successful performance in sport during childhood and
adolescence is affected by a wide range of physical and
physiologic factors that operate in a sport-specific manner.3
While training specific performance variables engenders future
success for some young children and adolescents,3,66 a more
comprehensive analysis insinuates that the interaction between
genetic and training factors promotes elite performance.88
OperatiOnal DefinitiOn
The studies analyzed used a wide array of definitions for
an elite athlete.8,20,26,29,34,63,80,82 For the endurance athlete,
the determination is even more complicated because of
the inconsistency in defining what variables (eg, anaerobic
threshold [AT], maximal oxygen uptake [VO2max]) determine
elite performance. For this article, an elite athlete is defined as
follows:
What Performance Characteristics
Determine Elite Versus Nonelite Athletes
in the Same Sport?
Daniel S. Lorenz, DPT, PT, LAT, CSCS, USAW,*†
Michael P. Reiman, PT, DPT, OCS, SCS, ATC, FAAOMPT, CSCS,‡ B.J. Lehecka, DPT,§
and Andrew Naylor, PT, DPT, SCS||
Context: There are significant data comparing elite and nonelite athletes in anaerobic field and court sports as well
as endurance sports. This review delineates specific performance characteristics in the elite athlete and may help guide
rehabilitation.
Evidence Acquisition: A Medline search from April 1982 to April 2012 was undertaken for articles written in English.
Additional references were accrued from reference lists of research articles.
Results: In the anaerobic athlete, maximal power production was consistently correlated to elite performance. Elite perfor-
mance in the endurance athlete is more ambiguous, however, and appears to be related to the dependent variable investi-
gated in each individual study.
Conclusion: In anaerobic field and court sport athletes, maximal power output is most predictive of elite performance. In
the endurance athlete, however, it is not as clear. Elite endurance athletes consistently test higher than nonelite athletes in
running economy, anaerobic threshold, and VO2max.
Keywords: elite versus nonelite athlete; performance characteristics; endurance athlete
[ Primary Care ]
From †Specialists in Sports and Orthopedic Rehabilitation, Overland Park, Kansas, ‡Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, §Wichita State University,
Wichita, Kansas, and ||Beacon Orthopaedics, Cincinnati, Ohio
*Address correspondence to Daniel S. Lorenz, DPT, PT, LAT, CSCS, USAW, Director of Physical Therapy, Specialists in Sports and Orthopedic Rehabilitation, 7381 W 133rd
St, Suite 302, Overland Park, KS 66213 (e-mail: danielslorenz@gmail.com).
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest in the development and publication of this manuscript.
DOI: 10.1177/1941738113479763
© 2013 The Author(s)

543
vol. 5 • no. 6 SPORTS HEALTH
1. drafted or drafted in high rounds versus those undrafted or
drafted in later rounds;
2. perceived as having greater performance ability than that of
their peers in the same sport;
3. play at a higher level within a sport (division I vs II, profes-
sional vs amateur); and
4. for endurance, greater variables (eg, running economy, AT,
VO2max).
CharaCteristiCs Of anaerObiC fielD
anD COurt spOrt athletes
American football requires a variety of mental and physical
attributes to be successful. Elite American football players
typically possess superior anthropometric height and weight
measurements3 7,6 4 compared with nonfootball individuals. In
addition, they demonstrate a variety of physical performance
characteristics for numerous movement patterns. The National
Football League combine assesses 8 physical performance
tests.79 Despite the effort to choose athletes with the best
physical attributes, actual performance varies considerably.
A recent study examined the combine performance differences
between drafted and undrafted players.83 Players were divided
into 3 position groups: skill players (wide receivers, running
backs, and defensive backs), big skill players (fullbacks,
linebackers, tight ends, and defensive ends), and linemen
(centers, offensive tackles, offensive guards, and defensive
tackles). For skill players, those drafted performed significantly
better than nondrafted players on the 40-yard dash, vertical
jump height, proagility shuttle, and 3-cone drill.83 In the big
skill group, drafted players performed significantly better on the
40-yard dash and the 3-cone drill. Finally, the 40-yard dash, 225-
lb bench press test, and the 3-cone drill were significantly better
in the drafted versus undrafted linemen.
An evaluation of anatomic and physiologic characteristics
to determine those that best predict American football ability
found the only test that predicted football ability was the
Margaria-Kalamen power test (athlete propels up a flight of 12
stairs, 3 at a time, as quickly as possible), which also related to
a better 40-yard dash.4 In division I-A football, football playing
ability was significantly correlated with vertical jump for all
positions.80 A study of 46 college football players found that the
36.6-m sprint and 18.3-m shuttle run predicted football playing
ability, while physical characteristics such as height, weight,
and percentage body fat did not.26
Based on the available studies, it appears that regardless
of position, power, speed, and agility are most relevant to
actual performance in the National Football League, and
anthropometric characteristics such as height and weight are
less important.26,37,79,80,83 Interestingly, it is not known which
characteristics of undrafted or late-round picks indicate success
in American football.
Similar to American football, rugby requires a wide variety
of physical fitness qualities.8 To compete at a high level,
athletes must demonstrate tactical abilities in addition to
physical performance measures.8 Recent research compared
elite division I National Rugby League players with division II
state league rugby players.8 Twenty athletes from each league
were assessed on the basis of the 1-repetition squat maximum,
power output of a jump squat, 10-m and 40-m sprints, cone
agility drill, and sprint momentum (body mass × average
velocity during 10-m sprint test). Elite players were significantly
bigger (height, weight) and stronger (maximum strength) than
division II players. They were also significantly more powerful
(explosive). Increased size and strength allowed elite players
to produce greater momentum compared with their nonelite
peers. The findings suggest that lower body strength relative to
body mass is an indicator of success in rugby, as heavier, faster
players would be able to drive forward better and, conversely,
be able to repel their opponents drive forward.
Elite junior rugby players were compared with subelite players
across anthropometric and physical ability measures to analyze
predictors of tackling ability.32 Forty-one players were assessed
on the basis of height, weight, and skinfold measurements as
well as lower body muscular power. Each player performed
6 tackling drills and was evaluated by 2 expert coaches with
a standardized grading system. Elite players ranked better in
all anthropometric and physiologic measures. The strongest
individual predictors of tackling ability were acceleration
and lower extremity muscular power; acceleration alone was
predictive of tackling ability in a regression analysis.
The relationship among isokinetic knee strength, single-
sprint performance, and repeated-sprint ability in soccer and
rugby players found the strongest correlation between relative
knee extensor torque at 240° and the initial acceleration phase
(0-10 m) of the single-sprint performance. Results suggest that
factors other than strength (in this case, power) contribute to
repeated-sprint ability.67
Studies in other sports also highlight the relationship of
power to specific sport demands. In elite-level ice hockey
players, higher peak anaerobic power output is an important
predictor of higher round picks in all positions.20 Furthermore,
greater standing long jump distance was a significant predictor
for overall hockey potential. With regard to weight and playing
level, greater horizontal leg power (off-ice sprint and 3-hop
jump) was the best predictor of skating performance.29
In elite volleyball players, sport-specific jumps are directly
related to depth jump performance, indicating that the stretch-
shortening cycle and tolerance of high stretch loads are critical
to performance.82 In a study of elite Serbian basketball players,
anaerobic power was higher in the center position than in
guards and forwards.70
Acceleration (a critical component of sprinting) separates
elite athletes from their nonelite peers.8,3 4,37,63,79,83 Lacrosse,
soccer, and field hockey have similar characteristics to rugby
and football.63 Investigators analyzed sprinting ability in soccer
players with tests for power, strength, and leg stiffness to
differentiate elite from nonelite athletes.63 Subjects were divided
into 2 groups based on sprint speed. Faster accelerating
athletes demonstrated shorter ground contact times and higher

544
Lorenz et al Nov • Dec 2013
step frequencies than the slower group. Higher strength and
power measures were also found in the faster group.
Success in sports requires a variety of physical factors that
many athletes strive to attain. While some variables, such
as ambition, drive, and mental toughness, are difficult to
quantify for research purposes, measures of height, mass,
strength, speed, acceleration, agility, and power are identifiable
and measureable. On multiple levels, physical performance
measures differentiate elite athletes from those who are
not.8,34,37,63,79,83 Unfortunately, success cannot be defined by
physical performance measures alone.
perfOrmanCe CharaCteristiCs Of
elite enDuranCe athletes
Several key physiologic and training variables correlate with elite
endurance performance, including VO2max, running economy,
AT, anthropometry, and an array of training characteristics, and
distinguish elite from nonelite endurance athletes.
Maximal Oxygen Uptake
VO2max is the maximum rate that oxygen can be taken from
ambient air and transported to cells for cellular respiration
during physical activity.40 VO2max in triathletes ranges from 39
to 49 mL/kg/min during tethered swimming,62,73 57 to 61 mL/
kg/min during cycle ergometry,68,71 ,72 and 61 to 85 mL/kg/min
during treadmill running.42 ,68 ,72,73 These variances allude to the
reality that variables correlated with endurance performance
are dependent on individual sports.
Genetic factors, in addition to environmental and training
factors, have an effect on an athlete’s VO2max. A study of 268
Bolivians concluded that 20% to 25% of the variability in
aerobic capacity at high altitude can be explained by genetic
factors. In 172 dizygotic and monozygotic twins, the genetic
effect for VO2max was 40%.17 Other studies suggest a genetic
contribution to VO2max and endurance running.84,8 8
VO2max measured via a crank arm ergometer and
tethered swimming showed weak correlations to triathlon
swimming.2 1, 27,7 3 More significant relationships have been
demonstrated between VO2max and cycling and total triathlon
time.62,68,72,91 Evidence indicates that factors such as thermal
regulation, fluid homeostasis, and energy balance have an
increasingly larger impact on performance than VO2max, as the
length of the triathlon increases.59
Elite marathon runners typically have VO2max values ranging
from 70 to 85 mL/kg/min.49 VO2max is considered a significant
physiologic determinant of middle- and long-distance running
performance.18,31,77 As such, VO2max has been used to predict the
upper limits of marathon performance.47,4 8 Moreover, VO2max
accounts for up to 59% of the variance in times for “top-class”
marathon runners.12 End-stage treadmill velocity in a VO2max
test also is a predictor of performance,25 and it may be the best
predictor of 5000-m performance in untrained and trained
individuals.86
While VO2max undoubtedly correlates with the performance
of endurance athletes, this association should be tempered
with the knowledge that maximal aerobic power may vary.73
The inability of VO2max to predict endurance sport performance
entirely necessitates inclusion of other physiologic variables,
such as running economy.48
Running Economy
Running economy (efficiency) is expressed as the steady-state
submaximal oxygen uptake at a given running velocity.48 The
lower the oxygen consumption at a given submaximal running
speed, the better the economy. A higher proportion of slow-
twitch fibers is associated with better running economy.16,50,8 9 A
study of collegiate cross-country team members discovered that
the combined analysis of a runner’s VO2max and running economy
could account for 92% of the variance in performance during
an 8000-m race.43 Running economy, like VO2max, has been used
to estimate a marathon pace in elite runners.47,4 8 However, male
marathon runners’ oxygen cost at marathon velocity may not
correlate with performance time.12 In fact, the average running
economy of 10 top-class marathoners (210 ± 12 mL/kg/km)
was significantly higher than that of 10 high-level marathoners
(195 ± 4 mL/kg/km).12 Therefore, running economy alone may
not be a conclusive predictor of elite endurance performance,
although it is undoubtedly correlated.
Anaerobic Threshold
While the VO2max of an endurance athlete separates elite from
nonelite athletes, the ability to sustain a high percentage
of VO2max is perhaps even more predictive of endurance
performance. This ability is related to the AT.22,91 AT is the
oxygen consumption during exercise, above which there is a
sharp increase in anaerobic energy production resulting in a
significant increase in lactic acid levels.22,91 Similar to VO2max,
genetic factors may have an impact on AT.36 Measures of ATs
during cycling for triathletes have ranged from 61% to 88%
of the VO2max.58,72 ,85, 91 An athlete’s AT is the greatest predictor
of race performance in endurance cycling14,22,23 and running
events.30,7 5,76,78 AT also correlates with triathlon performance
over Olympic distances.28,91 When each variable is examined
independently, AT is more telling of endurance performance
than VO2max or running economy.
Anthropometry
An endurance athlete’s anthropometric characteristics,
including body height, weight, and skinfold thickness, correlate
with performance.5,41 Body mass positively correlates with race
times for novice and experienced marathoners.39,41,51 Moreover,
low body fat percentages are associated with faster race
times.9,10,52,57 The mean percentage of body fat for elite female
and male runners combined is 8.0%, compared with 10.7% and
12.1% for “good” and “average” runners, respectively.9

545
vol. 5 • no. 6 SPORTS HEALTH
Low measures of select skinfold thickness also correlate with
increased endurance performance.5,52 Elite endurance athletes
generally have a slim physique high in ectomorphy compared
with lower level athletes10 or sedentary groups.9 At the same
time, conflicting studies demonstrate no association between
anthropometry and endurance performances in recreational
ultratriathletes, recreational ultrarunners, and ultraendurance
cyclists.53,54
Training Characteristics
Several training characteristics predict endurance
performance.10,38,5 5,73 Among ultratriathletes, personal best
triathlon times correlate with future triathlon performance.54
Personal best marathon time, longest training session, training
intensity, and training volume all correlate with performance
in recreational ultrarunners.53 Training speed, frequency,
duration, and previous finishes in cycling marathons correlate
with performance in ultraendurance cyclists; training speed is
the most predictive variable.56 Moreover, several other studies
support the correlation between these training variables and
improved endurance performance.10,38 ,55,73
Highly competitive endurance athletes who perform
resistance training in addition to routine endurance training
demonstrate improved performance.90,98 Six or more weeks of
sport-specific, explosive resistance training or heavy weight
resistance training improves running economy by up to 8%
and performance in 3- and 5-km runs by 2.9%.90 Highly trained
cyclists can improve by implementing high-intensity explosive
resistance exercises.90 Resistance training enhances endurance
by transforming type IIb muscle fibers into type IIa muscle
fibers—a muscular adaptation also induced by endurance
training.87
The necessity for the inclusion of training parameters, such as
intensity, frequency, duration, and performance history, when
attempting to characterize endurance athletes is considerable.
Given the variability of VO2max, running economy, AT, and
anthropometric characteristics among high-level endurance
athletes, training parameters may be the most reliable
predictors of endurance performance. Furthermore, when
sport-specific, explosive resistance training is correlated with
increased endurance performance, an athlete’s muscular power
must be considered.
Elite East African Endurance Runners
In 2010, 41 of the 50 fastest marathons were run by Kenyans
or Ethiopians, and 84 of the top 100 competitive marathon
rankings were owned by Kenyan or Ethiopian runners in
2012.6 Genetic studies of elite African athletes do not show a
unique genetic makeup; however, environmental and social
factors likely play a role.81 Kenyan runners are from a distinct
environmental background (higher altitudes) and commute
farther by foot than other populations. A study within Kenya
discovered that a higher percentage of elite runners ran to
school each day (national athletes, 73%; international athletes,
81%; controls, 22%), in addition to covering greater distances.
Seventy-five percent of controls traveled fewer than 5 km to
school each day, compared with 49% of international athletes.69
East Africans possess several previously mentioned factors that
combine to create an elite endurance athlete: sizeable VO2max,
running economy, and ideal anthropometric characteristics.60
COnClusiOn
Defining elite performance remains elusive owing to the
wide array of descriptors utilized. No single characteristic
has been defined as the main predictor of performance
in elite endurance athletes. Elite athletes in anaerobic
sports are more powerful and explosive than their
counterparts.4,8,26,30,34,37,63,67,79,80,82,83 The focus of performance
training in the anaerobic athlete should be on increasing
power production, which has a direct correlation with speed
and agility. Physical characteristics such as height, weight,
percentage body fat, and flexibility are not as important in
athletic performance.4,26,37,79,80,83
referenCes
1. Ahmetov II, Rogozkin VA. Genes, ath lete status and training: an overview.
Med Sport Sci. 2009;54:43-71.
2. Aouadi R, Jlid MC, Khalifa R, et al. Association of anth ropometric qualities
with vertical jump performance in elite male volleyball players. J Spor ts Med
Phys Fit. 2012;52(1):11-17.
3. Armstrong N, McManus AM. Physiology of elite young male athletes. Med
Sport Sci. 2011;56:1-22.
4. Arnold JA, Brown B, Micheli R P, Coker TP. Anatom ical and physiologic
character istics to predict football ability: report of study methods
and correlations, University of Arkansas, 1976. Am J Sports Med.
198 0; 8(2):119 -122.
5. Arrese AL, Ost ariz ES. Skinfold thicknesses associated with distance r unning
performance in highly trained r unners. J S ports Sci. 20 0 6; 24 (1):69 -76.
6. Association of Road Racing Statisticians. http://www.arrs.net. Accessed April
22, 2 012.
7. Augustsson J, Thomee R. Ability of closed and open chain kinetic chain
tests of muscular strength to assess f unctional performance. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 20 00 ;10( 3):164 -168 .
8. Baker DG, Newton RU. Comparison of lower body strength, power,
acceleration, speed, agility, and sprint momentum to describe and compare
playing rank among professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res.
20 0 8;22(1) :153-158 .
9. Bale P, Bradbury D, Colley E. A nthropometric and training var iables related
to 10km running perfor mance. Br J Sports Med. 198 6; 20 (4) :170 -173 .
10. Bale P, Rowell S, Colley E. Anthropometric and training characteristics of
female marathon runners as determinants of distance running performance.
J Sports Sci. 1985;3(2):115-12 6.
11. Ben Abdelkri m N, Chaouachi A, Chamari K, Chtara M, Castagna C.
Positional role and competitive-level differences in elite-level men’s
basketball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24( 5):134 6-1355.
12. Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawi nski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP. Physical and
training characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports E xerc.
2001;33(12):2089-2097.
13. Bishop D, Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A. Repeated-spr int abilit y: part II.
Recommendations for training. Sports Med. 2011;41(9):741-756.
14. Bishop D, Jenkins DG, Mackinnon LT. The relationship between plasma
lactate parameters, peak and 1-h cycling performance in women. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1998;30 (8):1270-1275.
15. Blackburn JR, Mor rissey MC. The relationship between open and closed
chain strength of the lower li mb and jumping performance. J O rthop Sports
Phys Ther. 1998;27(6):430-435.
16. Bosco C, Montanari G, Ribacchi R, et al. Relationship between the efficiency
of muscular work during jumping and the energetics of running. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol. 19 87;56 (2):1 38 -14 3.

546
Lorenz et al Nov • Dec 2013
17. Bouchard C, Lesage R, Lortie G, et al. Aerobic performance in brothers,
dizygotic and monozygotic twins. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 19 86 ;18 (6):63 9- 6 46 .
18. Brandon LJ. Physiological factors associated with middle distance runn ing
performance. Sports Med. 19 95 ;19:268-27 7.
19. Burgess DJ, Naughton GA. Talent development in adolescent team sports: a
review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(1):103-116.
20. Burr JF, Jamnik R K, Baker J, et al. Relationship of physical fitness test results
and hockey playing potential in elite-level ice hockey players. J Stre ngth
Cond Res. 20 0 8;2 2( 5) :1535-1543 .
21. Butts NK, Henry BA, Mclean D. Correlations between VO2max and
performance times of recreational triathletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
1991;31(3):339-344.
22. Coyle EF. Integration of the physiological factors determining endurance
performance ability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1995;23:25-63.
23. Coyle EF, Feltner ME, Kautz SA, et al. Physiological and biomechanical
factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med Sci Spor ts
Exerc. 1991;2 3 (1):9 3 -107.
24. Cronin J, Sleivert G. Challenges in understanding the influence of
maximal power trai ning on improving athletic performance. Sports Med.
20 05 ;35 (3):213 -2 34 .
25. Daniels J, Scardina N, Hayes J, Foley P. Elite and subelite female middle-
and long-distance runners. In: Landers DM, ed. Sport and Elite Per formers.
Champaign, IL: Human Ki netics; 1984:55-72.
26. Davis DS, Barnette BJ, Kiger JT, et al. Physical characteristics that predict
functional performance in division I college football players. J Strength Cond
Res. 2004;18(1):115-120.
27. Dengel DR, Flynn MG, Costill DL, et al. Determinants of success during
triathlon competition. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989;60(3):234-238.
28. De Vito G, Bernardi M, Sproviero E, et al. Decrease of endurance
performance during Olympic triathlon. Int J Sports Med. 19 95;16(1) :2 4-28.
29. Farlinger CM, Kruisselbri nk LD, Fowles JR. Relationships to skating
performance in competitive hockey players. J Strength Cond Res.
20 0 7;2 1(3): 915 -92 2.
30. Farrel PA, Wilmore JH, Coyle EF, et al. Plasma lactate accumulation and
distance running performance. Med Sci Spor ts. 1979 ;11(4):33 8-344.
31. Foster C. VO2max and training indices as determinants of competitive
running performance. J Sports Sci. 19 83;1:13 -22.
32. Frisancho AR, Frisancho HG, Milotich M, et al. Developmental, genetic, and
environmental components of aerobic capacity at high altitude. Am J Phys
Anthropol. 1995;96(4):431-442.
33. Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG, Abernethy B. Correlates of tackling ability in high-
performance rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2 011;25 (1):72 -79.
34. Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG, Abernethy B. Physiological and anthropometric
correlates of tackling ability in junior elite and subelite rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(11):2989-2995.
35. Gabbett T, Kelly J, Pezet T. Relationship between physical fitness and playing
ability in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):112 6-1133.
36. Ge RL, Chen QH, Wang LH, et al. Higher exercise performance and lower
VO2max in Tibetan than Han residents at 4,700 m altit ude. J Appl Physiol.
1994;77(2):684-691.
37. Ghigiarelli JJ. Combine performance descriptors and predictors of recruit
ranking for the top high school recruits from 2001 to 2009: differences
between position groups. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(5):1193 -120 3.
38. Gulbin JP, Gaffney PT. Ultraendurance triathlon participation: typical race
preparation of lower level triathletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999;39:12-15.
39. Hagan RD, Smith MG, Gettman LR. Marathon performance in relation
to maximal aerobic power and training indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1982;13(3):185-189.
40. Hill AV, Lupton H. Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and
utilization of oxygen. Q J Med. 1923;16 :135-17 1.
41. Hoffman MD. Anthropometric character istics of ultramarathoners. Int J
Sports Med. 20 08;29 (10):8 08 - 811.
42. Holly RG, Barnard RJ, Rosenthal M, et al. Triathlete characterization and
response to prolonged strenuous competition. Med Sci Spor ts Exerc.
1986;18(1):123-127.
43. Houmard JA, Craib M W, O’Brien KF, Smith LL, Israel RG, Wheeler WS. Peak
running velocity, submaximal energy expenditure, VO2max, and 8 km
distance running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1991;31(3):345-350.
44. Hrysomallis C. Balance ability and athletic per formance. Sports Med.
2011;41(3):2 21-232.
45. Hrysomallis C, Buttifant D. Inf luence of training years on upper-body
strength and power changes during the competitive season for professional
Australian rules football players. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(4):374-378.
46. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Castagna C, et al. Validity of a repeated-spri nt
test for football. Int J S ports Med. 2008 ;2 9(11): 899 -90 5.
47. Joyner MJ. Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of
physiological factors. J Appl Physiol. 1991;70(2):683-687.
48. Joyner MJ, Coyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of
champions. J Physiol. 2 0 08 ;58 6(1):3 5-4 4.
49. Joyner MJ, Ruiz JR, Lucia A. The two-hour marathon: who and when? J Appl
Physiol. 2 011;110(1):275 -27 7.
50. Kaneko M. Mechanics and energetics in r unning with special reference to
ef fic ie ncy. J Biomech. 1990;23:57-63.
51. Knechtle B, Dugg B, Welzel U, Kohler G. Body mass and circumference of
upper arm are associated wit h race performance in ultraendurance runners in a
multistage race—the Isarrun 2006. Re s Q Exerc Sport. 2009;80(2):262-268.
52. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Barandun U, Rosemann T, Lepers R. Predictor
variables for half marathon race time in recreational female runners. Clinics
(Sao Paulo). 2011;66(2):287-291.
53. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rosemann T, Lepers R. Personal best marathon
time and longest training run, not anthropometr y, predict performance in
recreational 24-hour ultrarunners. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(8):2212-2218.
54. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rosemann T, Senn O. Personal best time, not
anthropometry or training volume, is associated with total race time in a
triple iron triathlon. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(4):1142 -1150.
55. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rosemann T, Senn O. Sex differences in association
of race performance, skin-fold thicknesses, and training variables for
recreational half-marathon runners. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;111( 3):653- 668.
56. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rust CA, Rosemann T, Lepers R. Finishers and
nonfinishers in the “Swiss Cycling Marathon” to qualify for the “R ace Across
Am er ic a.” J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(12):3257-3263.
57. Knechtle B, Wir th A, Knechtle P, Rosemann T. Moderate association of
anthropometry, but not training volume, with race performance in male
ultraendurance cyclists. Res Q Exerc Spor t. 2009;80(3):563-568.
58. Kohrt WM, O’Connor JS, Skinner JS. Longitudinal assessment of responses
by triath letes to swim ming, cycling, and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1989;21( 5):569 -575.
59. Kreider RB. Physiological considerations of ultraendurance performance. Int
J Sports Nutr. 1991;1(1):3-27.
60. Larsen HB, Christensen DL, Nolan T, Sondergaard H. Body dimensions,
exercise capacity and physical activity level of adolescent Nandi boys in
western Kenya. Ann Hum Biol. 20 04;31(2):159-173.
61. Lidor R, Ziv G. Physical characteristics and physiological attributes of
adolescent volleyball players: a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2 01 0; 22 (1):114 -13 4.
62. Lidor R, Ziv G. Physical and physiological attributes of female volleyball
players: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 2 010;24 (7) :196 3-1973.
63. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Kn ight TJ, Janse de Jonge XAK. Factors that
differentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
2011;25(10):2704-2 714.
64. Mall NA, Matava MJ, Wright RW, Brophy RH. Relation between anterior
cruciate ligament graf t obliquity and knee laxity in elite athletes at the
National Football League combine. Arthro scopy. 2012;28(8):1104 -1113.
65. McGuigan MR, Wright GA, Fleck SJ. Strength training for athletes: does it
really help sports performance? Int J Spor ts Physiol Perform. 2012;7(1):2-5.
66. McManus AM, Armstrong N. Physiology of elite young female athletes. Med
Sport Sci. 2011;56:23-46.
67. Newman MA, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Relationships between isokinetic
knee strength, single-sprint performance, and repeated-sprint ability in
football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):867-872.
68. Noakes TD, Goodwin N, Rayner BL, et al. Water intoxication: a
possible complication during endurance exercise. Med Sci Sports E xerc.
1985;7:370-375.
69. Onywera VO, Scott RA, Boit MK, Pit siladis Y P. Demographic characteristics
of elite Kenyan endurance runners. J Sport s Sci. 2006;24(4):415-422.
70. Ostojic SM, Mazic S, Dik ic N. Profiling in basketball: physical and
physiological characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res.
20 06;2 0(4):74 0-744.
71. O’Toole ML. Training for ultraendurance triathlons. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1989;21(5):209-213.
72. O’Toole ML, Douglas PS, Hiller WD. Lactate, oxygen uptake, and cycling
performance in triathletes. Int J Sp orts Med. 1989;10(6):413 -418.
73. O’Toole ML, Hiller DB, Crosby LO, et al. The ultraendurance tr iathlete: a
physiological profile. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 198 7;19(1):45 -50.
74. Pearson DT, Naughton GA, Torode M. Predictability of physiological testing
and the role of maturation in talent identification for adolescent team sports.
J Sci Med Spor t. 2006;9(4):277-287.

547
vol. 5 • no. 6 SPORTS HEALTH
75. Peronnet F, Thibault G, Rhodes EC, et al. Correlations between ventilatory
threshold and endurance capability in marathon runners. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 19 87;19 :610 - 615.
76. Petit MA, Melson CM, Rhodes EC. Comparison of a mathematical model to
predict 10km performance from the Conconi test and ventilator y threshold
measurements. Can J Appl Physiol. 1997;22(6):562-572.
77. Pollock ML, Jackson AS, Pate RR. Discriminant analysis of physiological
differences between good and elite distance runners. Res Q Exerc Sport.
198 0; 51:521-532.
78. Rhodes EC, McKenzie DC. Predicting marathon time from anaerobic
threshold measurements. Phys Sport Med. 19 84;1 2(1) :9 5 -9 9.
79. Robbins DW. The National Football League (NFL) combi ne: does normalized
data better predict performance in the NFL draft? J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(11):2888-2899.
80. Sawyer DT, Ostarello JZ, Suess EA, Dempsey M. Relationship between
football playi ng ability and selected performance measures. J Strength Cond
Res. 2002;16(4):611-616.
81. Scott RA, Pitsiladis Y P. Genotypes and distance running: clues from Africa.
Sports Med. 2007;37(4-5):424- 427.
82. Sheppard JM, Cronin JB, Gabbett TJ, et al. Relative performance of strength,
power, and anthropometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball
players. J Strength Cond Res. 20 0 8;22( 3):75 8-765.
83. Sierer SP, Battaglini CL, Mihalik JP, et al. The National Football League
combine: performance differences between drafted and non-drafted players
entering the 2004 and 2005 drafts. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):6-12.
84. Sjodin B, Svendenhag J. Applied physiology of marathon running. Sports
Med. 1985(2):83-99.
85. Sleivert GG, Wenger HA. Physiological predictors of short-course triathlon
performance. Med Sci S ports E xerc. 1993;25(7):871-876.
86. Stratton E, O’Br ien BJ, Harvey J, et al. Treadmill velocit y best predicts
5000 -m run performance. Int J S ports Med. 2009;30(1):40- 45.
87. Tanaka H, Swensen T. Impact of resistance trai ning on endurance
performance: a new form of cross-training? Sports Med. 1998;25(3):
191-2 00.
88. Watanabe T, Mutoh Y, Yamamoto Y. Genetic variance in age-related changes
in running performance and growth duri ng adolescence: a longitudinal twin
study. Am J Hum Biol. 2001;13(1):71-80.
89. Williams K R, Cavanagh PR. Relationship between distance running
mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Appl Physiol.
1987;63(3):1236-1245.
90. Yamamoto L M, Klau JF, Casa DJ, Kraemer WJ, Armstrong LE, Maresh CM.
The effects of resistance training on road cycling performance among
highly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(2):560-566.
91. Zhou S, Robson SJ, King MJ, et al. Correlations between short-course
triath lon performance and physiological variables determined in laboratory
cycle and treadmill tests. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1997;37(2):122-130.
92. Ziv G, Lidor R. Physical attr ibutes, physiological characteristics, on-court
performances and nutritional strategies of female and male basketball
players. Sports Med. 2009;39(7):547-568.
For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.