This Week in Wisdom-ish (for runners who think a lot… and don’t have much time to read)
Each week, I comb through the latest endurance, sports science, psychology, and coaching research. So you don’t have to. Don’t worry, this is a nerdy passion. I try to distill it into plain language, practical takeaways, and reflections on what it means for the kind of running I do here at Waybound: thoughtful, purposeful, human. No hype, no clickbait. Just notes, honest questions, and my usual healthy dose of criticism and skepticism. Perfect for trail runners and overthinkers.
This week’s research roundup June 23 – June 30, 2025
Big ideas, tweaks, and opinions.: this week’s studies invite us to think deeper about how and why we train. Durability, fatigability, and resilience were redefined not just as traits, but as ways of understanding performance in real-world messiness. Intervals got parsed by protocol, revealing that effectiveness often comes down to timing, recovery, and context. Trail studies reminded us that downhill demands more than daring, and that pacing is only half the story, kinematics matter, too. Ultras showed their lingering impact on the body’s biochemical systems, while smaller-scale studies pointed to bone health, core function, and injury signals we often overlook. AI promised to personalize movement education, but raised more questions than it answered. Amidst it all, a subversively simple study suggested that the fit of a sports bra can shape an athlete’s breath, fatigue, and perception. From cellular stress to social motivation, this week’s research asks not just what makes us faster and what sustains us.
Table of contents: this week’s research titles
Deeper dives
– Durability, Fatigability, Repeatability and Resilience in Endurance Sports: Definitions, Distinctions, and Implications
– Comparison of different interval training methods on athletes’ oxygen uptake: a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis
– Kinematics and performance on uphill and downhill trail running in elite and well-trained athletes
– Longitudinal NMR-based Metabolomics Analysis of Male Mountain Ultramarathon Runners: New Perspectives for Athletes Monitoring and Injury Prevention
– Factors Associated with Bone Health in Long Distance Runners: A Cross-Sectional Study
– Not All Bodies are Created Equal: Use of Generative AI in Physical Education
– Perspective: A head-to-toe view on athletic locomotion with an emphasis on assessing core stability
– The effects of uphill training on the maximal velocity and performance of middle-distance runners: a randomized controlled trial
– Associations between training load, heart rate variability, perceptual fatigue, sleep, and injury in endurance athletes during a 12-week training mesocycle
– Identifying Anxiety and Sleep Problems, Associated Factors, and Sex Differences in Endurance and Ultra-Endurance Runners
– Sports bra tightness affects respiratory muscle fatigue, breathing pattern, and perceptual responses during running
– The Debate Over Easy vs. High-Intensity Training is a Waste of Time. Here’s Why
See also 20(!) other worthy footnotes of trail and ultra related science news.
Durability, Fatigability, Repeatability and Resilience in Endurance Sports: Definitions, Distinctions, and Implications
This conceptual paper challenges the long-standing endurance model (VO₂max, lactate threshold, movement economy) by introducing four additional constructs: durability, fatigability, repeatability, and resilience. These aim to explain endurance performance more holistically, especially in prolonged or variable-intensity events. The authors define each construct, outline methods of assessment, and discuss physiological mechanisms and training implications. Importantly, they stress that these terms are often used interchangeably in sport science and media, but they represent distinct, event-specific capabilities. The paper calls for clearer definitions, sport-specific protocols, and a shift in how performance is assessed and coached.
This is a new and relevant study as it systematically clarifies confusing and often misused terminology in endurance science, offering a roadmap for research and coaching to move beyond the VO₂max monoculture. So I think this is highly valuable conceptually, though more empirical validation is needed. The definitions are useful, but the metrics remain unstandardized and under-tested in applied settings.
Practical takeaways:
– Durability is your ability to maintain performance over long durations. It’s trainable through both low- and high-intensity work and may be enhanced with strength training.
– Fatigability reflects how quickly you slow down under continuous or repeated efforts without full recovery. High volume, low-intensity training helps here by boosting oxidative efficiency.
– Repeatability is about recovering and reproducing high-intensity efforts (multi-stage races, FKTs). Training includes intervals with structured rest to boost recovery kinetics.
– Resilience is your capacity to adapt and maintain function under stress (heat, altitude, sleep deprivation). Mental, metabolic, and thermoregulatory flexibility matter. Train with adversity in mind.
This paper speaks directly to my coaching ethos: training isn’t just about peak numbers in sterile conditions; it’s about how you perform in messy, real-life spaces (on tired legs, in bad weather, after little sleep, or with emotional load). By naming and distinguishing these capacities, this study helps design more targeted, athlete-centered training. It’s a vocabulary that gives nuance to adaptation and context to fatigue. The authors do an excellent job separating often-overlapping ideas (esp. distinguishing fatigability from repeatability). Resilience, often the vaguest of these terms, is rightly extended to include psychological and environmental stressors. That said, the authors rely heavily on review and synthesis. There’s limited empirical data here. It’s a think-piece with applied intentions but few direct outcomes or intervention results. The operational protocols proposed are still rough sketches. We badly need agreed-upon testing and longitudinal tracking frameworks that bridge lab and trail. The call to center coach-led, field-based definitions is spot on.
This systematic review and network meta-analysis is a treasure trove of practical insights once you strip away the statistical jungle. They compared the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), sprint interval training (SIT), and repeated sprint training (RST) on athletes’ VO₂max across 51 studies with 1,261 athletes. All three training types significantly improved VO₂max compared to conventional training, with RST yielding the largest effect size, closely followed by HIIT. Optimal protocols were identified through meta-regression: for HIIT, 140 seconds of work with 165 seconds of recovery (3x/week, 3–6 weeks), and for SIT, sprints under 30 seconds with less than 97 seconds of recovery. RST showed measurable gains in as little as two weeks.
It’s the first study I know of to systematically rank RST, HIIT, and SIT protocols in athletes, with strong methodology, decent study quality, and a robust sample. But heterogeneity and limited direct comparisons mean results should still be applied with nuance. While RST looks like the top performer, the evidence base is thinner and more variable than for HIIT. Runners newer to sprint work should ramp up cautiously.
Practical takeaways:
– If you’re short on time, RST might be your best bang-for-breath: Just two weeks of 3 sessions per week yielded big VO₂max gains.
– Timing matters: For HIIT, stick to 140-second work intervals with a 0.85 work-to-recovery ratio (about 165 seconds of recovery).
– Different interval types serve slightly different goals: RST may be best for short-term VO₂max gains, HIIT for sustainable improvement with less mechanical stress than SIT, and SIT for athletes who tolerate max efforts well and want anaerobic/aerobic crossover benefits.
– There’s a sweet spot for frequency and duration: Across all interval types, the magic number was 3x/week for 2–6 weeks. More isn’t better, above that, gains plateau or even dip.
– Running-based intervals outperform cycling or rowing for VO₂max improvements. This could be due to specificity and testing bias (i.e., most studies measured VO₂max while running).
– Don’t over-rely on VO₂max: The study notes that VO₂max gains may not fully explain improvements (esp. in trained or older athletes). Use these protocols to support, not replace, broader endurance or race-specific work.
What I love here is the focus on smart doses: show up consistently, tailor wisely, and let adaptation lead. It also reminds us to respect individuality, what works best may depend on your training history, recovery ability, and what else life throws at you. But the meta-analysis fills an important gap by focusing on athletes rather than general populations. A few flags remain though: the heterogeneity (I² up to 70%) and lack of direct comparisons between methods temper how confidently we can rank them. The inverted-U relationship for HIIT is fascinating, though it would be more compelling if replicated across broader contexts and sports. Still, the authors went the distance: three-level meta-regression, dose-response modeling, and subgroup analysis make this a very coaching-useful paper. I very much appreciate the cool graphs (worth checking out). If you’re looking for science-backed ways to boost VO₂max without nuking your calendar, this study is gold.
Below you can find the workouts, based on how I’d translate this research, for everyone to
1. HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) – “classic peak builder”
Moderate to hard intensity (90–100% VO₂max / 85–95% HRmax). Best for: Versatile aerobic development, manageable stress, progression over time.
– 4–6 reps of 140s work @90–95% max effort with 165s recovery jog or walk
– 1–2 min passive or very easy active rest between sets if doing multiple blocks
Example: 5x(2:20 at hard effort, 2:00 jog)
Add 1 interval per week or shorten recovery by 15s every two weeks.
2. SIT (Sprint Interval Training) – “power punch”
All-out or supramaximal effort (≥100% VO₂max). Best for: Anaerobic power + aerobic boost, short-time commitment, mentally gritty athletes.
– 6–8 x 30s max sprints with <97s (ideally 30–90s light jog or walk)
Passive recovery okay, but keep it short!
Example: 8x(30s hill sprint or fast flat, 60-75s walk/jog)
Cap volume at 4–6 minutes total sprint time. Don’t chase volume here.
3. RST (Repeated Sprint Training) – “Sprint Repeater”
Short sprints (≤10s) + short rest (≤60s)
– 2–3 sets of 5–10 x 6–10s sprints with 20–30s recovery between reps, 2–3 min walk between sets
Example: 2 sets of 8x(8s sprint, 25s rest), 3 min rest between sets
Keep recovery short but tweak surfaces or inclines to manage load.
Kinematics and performance on uphill and downhill trail running in elite and well-trained athletes
This other uphill study tracked 100 top male finishers in the 2023 Dolomyths Skyrace (22 km, ±1750 m) to assess how uphill and downhill segments impact race performance and running kinematics. Video footage from two UP and two DH segments was used to analyze stride frequency, length, contact time, and stride duration. While more total time was spent climbing, greater time losses relative to the best split occurred on the descents (esp. among lower-performing athletes). Uphill speed was best predicted by stride frequency, while downhill speed hinged on stride length. Importantly, once speed was accounted for, there were no kinematic differences across performance groups, suggesting it’s how fast you run, not how you run, that separates the front pack from the rest. This is one of the first studies to dissect the contribution of uphill vs. downhill segments to performance in a real-world Skyrace, adding nuance to existing flat-ground VO2max models.
Though limited to elite male athletes and short video segments, the in-race data collection, ecological validity, and rigorous kinematic analysis make this a solid study (esp. for coaches and athletes targeting technical mountain races).
Practical takeaways:
– Downhill determines destiny: Although climbs take up more time, downhill sections are where the most time is lost, and where performance gaps widen.
– Uphill speed = higher cadence: Faster runners climb by increasing stride frequency, not necessarily stride length (no surprises here).
– Downhill speed = longer strides: Descending efficiently comes down to maximizing stride length, likely tied to eccentric strength and terrain fluency.
The study reinforces how running efficiency and pacing strategies aren’t about textbook form, they’re about context. Uphill running isn’t about power alone; it’s about rhythm. Downhill isn’t about reckless speed, it’s about stride mastery, body control, technical fluency, all of which are trainable with presence and patience. This paper expands on prior VO2max-centered models by integrating terrain-specific kinematics. It confirms that downhill performance is a more complex (and decisive) variable in trail running, echoing recent findings. Methodologically, the study is robust: split-time analysis + high-frame-rate kinematic data = a pretty golden combo for field research. But the gender gap in sampling is glaring, and the 15-meter kinematic clips, while precise, might underrepresent variability in real trail conditions.
Workout prescriptions based on this study
1. Downhill stride-length builders to improve downhill speed via longer, controlled strides
Workout: 5–8 x 60–90 seconds of moderate-steep downhill running (10–20% grade).
Focus: gradually open stride, stay relaxed, soft landings.
Add reps or use slightly steeper terrain over weeks.
2. Uphill stride-frequency intervals to increase cadence to power uphill speed
Workout: 6–10 x 2-minute uphill intervals at moderate grade (~10–15%)
Cue: Use a metronome (aim for 5–10% above natural cadence).
Progression: Shorten rest or increase number of intervals.
3. Split-tempo simulation (10K Up / 12K Down) on treadmill for pacing strategy and kinematic stability under fatigue
Workout: Long effort simulating race split
First ~60%: Steady uphill at tempo effort
Last ~40%: Controlled-fast descent focusing on maintaining form
Track RPE, cadence, and stride length. Notice what shifts when tired.
4. Eccentric strength & plyos to fortify legs for downhill braking and longer strides
Slow eccentric split squats (3–4 sets x 6–8 reps per leg)
Nordic curls or single-leg RDLs
Bounding drills and lateral hops (3–4 x 10–15 sec)
5. Footstrike precision drills (technical terrain) to improve downhill confidence and stride fluidity
Workout: 20–30 min technical trail descent at moderate effort
Cue: Light on feet, high turnover early in descent, focus on sightlines and rhythm
Bonus: Include short bursts of ~30s fast descents to simulate race shifts
Longitudinal NMR-based Metabolomics Analysis of Male Mountain Ultramarathon Runners: New Perspectives for Athletes Monitoring and Injury Prevention
This study followed 16 male runners during the Tor des Géants (330 km, +24,000 m vert) and used NMR-based metabolomics to analyze changes in their blood at four time points: pre-, mid-, post-race, and after 72hrs of recovery. The researchers identified significant metabolic shifts (esp. toward fat metabolism (ketosis) and amino acid degradation) alongside persistent stress markers in muscle, cardiac, renal, and inflammatory systems. Even 72hrs post-race, neither metabolite levels nor clinical biomarkers had returned to baseline. This is a relevant study because it captures real-time biochemical changes during an actual mountain ultra. One of the first to integrate longitudinal NMR metabolomics during a race of this scale, offering rare insights into metabolic strain and recovery. The sample size is modest and limited to men, and dietary/supplement intake wasn’t tracked(!), but the study is still quite valuable, but not broadly generalizable.
Practical takeaways:
– Ketosis kicks in mid-race and stays elevated post-race, reflecting a major shift in energy systems. Fat adaptation may still be essential in long ultras.
– Cardiac, muscle, and renal biomarkers remained elevated 3 days post-race, suggesting recovery is still underway even when you “feel fine.”
– Increased tryptophan levels mid-race could be linked to central fatigue, hinting at a biochemical basis for those mental lows.
So don’t just listen to what your watch says: your heart, kidneys, and metabolism are still processing the effort days after you’re back on the couch. This study offers a powerful lens on what we’re asking of our bodies and why recovery isn’t just foam rolling and pizza. It’s geeky, gritty, and relevant study. Bonus points for doing this in the real-world messiness of the Tor des Géants. The study respects the complexity of ultra physiology without overpromising on tech.
by Ulrike H. Mitchell, Kelsey Clark, Savannah Nielsen, Patrick J. Owen – Osteoporosis International, 2025 (Let me know if you want access to this article)
Factors Associated with Bone Health in Long Distance Runners: A Cross-Sectional Study
An exam of how running habits affect bone mineral density (BMD) in 81 recreational male runners aged 36–79. Using DXA scans and accelerometry, researchers found that higher energy expenditure and more years of running were linked to better BMD at the lumbar spine, hip, and femoral neck, especially in runners +50. However, more time spent in light physical activity (like slow walking or chores) was consistently associated with lower BMD, particularly in younger runners. The long-assumed belief that running harms bones (esp. the spine) didn’t hold up here, at least for recreational runners.
Practical takeaways:
– Running long-term appears protective for bone health (esp. in older men), it’s the years on your legs, not just the miles per week, that count.
– High energy expenditure (i.e., training load) was positively associated with BMD, while too much light movement without intensity might actually be detrimental.
– More sedentary time wasn’t bad for bones in this cohort, suggesting rest (or “intentional recovery”) may play a role in allowing bone to rebuild.
It’s nice to see a study challenge decades of assumptions about running and bone loss with fresh, nuanced data. It’s small (81 men) and excludes women, but its methods are solid.
Not All Bodies are Created Equal: Use of Generative AI in Physical Education
An AI article… This conceptual paper explores how generative AI (Gen AI) can support personalized, engaging, and inclusive physical education. The authors argue that Gen IA can help overcome long-standing barriers in PE, like inconsistent instruction, student disengagement, and the subject’s marginalization. Key applications include real-time feedback on movement, personalized training plans, and inclusive lesson design tailored to individual needs. Despite these promises, the authors stress the need for ethical integration, teacher training, and a pedagogically sound framework.
While not directly focused on trail or ultra running, this piece sparks curiosity about how personalized, AI-powered feedback might extend to coaching contexts. The authors’ skepticism reaches to the point of saying that tech can enhance, but not replace, deep, relational coaching. The study offers an extended discussion on how gen AI could reshape movement education and treats PE as a meaningful site of digital transformation. While thought-provoking and well-argued, it’s more of a “think piece” than a research study. There’s no new empirical evidence, no data on outcomes, and lots of “coulds” and “mights.” Therefore, it reads like an AI love letter with one foot in reality.
Practical takeaways:
– Gen AI could offer real-time, individualized feedback in PE. For reluctant or marginalized students, digital tools might reignite interest in physical activity through gamified or tech-enhanced engagement.
– Teacher digital literacy is a keystone: without proper training and support, gen AI risks becoming just another tech gimmick. Any use of gen AI should support the teacher’s role as a relational, embodied, and context-sensitive guide, not a passive administrator of AI feedback. Avoid outsourcing judgment or pedagogical care to an algorithm.
– Don’t just adopt AI—interrogate it. Before using generative AI tools in PE, educators should ask: Who trained this model? What bodies does it center? What assumptions about movement, ability, or fitness does it make? AI isn’t neutral—and it often reflects dominant norms.
– Collecting movement or biometric data for feedback may seem helpful, but schools must ensure clear consent processes, data minimization, and transparent policies around who sees the data and how it’s stored.
– Current gen AI models in movement or fitness often lack representation across body types, disabilities, gender identities, and cultural movement practices. Advocate for inclusive datasets and context-sensitive design.
Putting on my non-coaching hat now. Not sorry. Here goes. The authors present an optimistic vision for integrating gen AI into PE, leaning heavily on techno-solutionism without adequately interrogating the social, ethical, and infrastructural complexities that such integration entails. Generative AI is discussed as if it’s plug-and-play for education, with little reflection on the actual limitations of current models. Movement tracking, personalized programming, and real-time feedback—these are high-friction, high-data processes with major cost, privacy, and implementation hurdles, especially in under-resourced situations.
The article gestures inclusivity but doesn’t engage deeply with how gen AI can perpetuate ableism, bias, and normativity. What datasets are these models trained on? Whose “ideal” movement patterns are being modeled and fed back to students? There’s no discussion of body diversity, race, gender, or disability bias in training data, which is well-documented in computer vision research. Using gen AI and motion-tracking wearables in schools raises massive red flags around surveillance, consent, and data commodification. The paper calls for real-time biometric and movement feedback, but what mechanisms are proposed for ethical governance? Who owns the data? How long is it stored? Will it be used for performance evaluation? These questions are absent.
While the authors claim that AI is a “tool for empowerment,” they flirt with automation that risks de-skilling teachers. There’s an underlying tension: AI is framed as a fix for overworked, under-resourced teachers, yet also as an entity that knows better, creating a creeping displacement of pedagogical authority. The article could benefit from a more nuanced take on what human teaching uniquely offers, especially in embodied, affective learning like PE. The authors don’t confront the stark inequities in AI integration. Places vary wildly in digital infrastructure and training. Proposing AI-driven personalized training for every student glosses over the digital divide and risks exacerbating inequality under the guise of personalization. This piece gestures toward “learner as leader,” but without giving learners actual agency over the systems analyzing their bodies.
This is a valuable speculative roadmap, but it lacks a critical foundation in AI ethics, equity, and socio-technical critique. Any implementation of gen AI in PE must tackle power, access, and the politics of who gets to define a “fit” or “able” body in a datafied education system.
Perspective: A head-to-toe view on athletic locomotion with an emphasis on assessing core stability
This perspective piece challenges the long-standing lower-body bias in gait and performance research by arguing for a full-body approach, particularly the underappreciated role of core stability in running. Zemková argues that both rigid core strength and excessive spinal stiffness can be detrimental to efficient locomotion, and emphasizes the importance of trunk rotational mobility, lumbopelvic coordination, and neuromuscular control for both straight-line and change-of-direction movements. The author calls for better, sport-specific assessments of how the core contributes to real movement. This questions assumptions in coaching and research: namely, that a “strong core” always helps. The call for integrative, sport-specific assessments makes it a worthy contribution. Many traditional core assessments (planks, crunches) may not reflect real-world running demands. Existing research hasn’t fully captured how the core behaves dynamically during gait.
Practical takeaways:
– A stiff, overdeveloped core might hurt running efficiency more than it helps. Think mobility + control, not just planks and bracing.
– Better gait and agility assessments should include measures of postural alignment, trunk mobility, and real-time neuromuscular coordination.
– Functional, movement-specific core stability (not maximal strength) matters most for endurance and agility-based sports.
So, my interpretation as a coach is this: Instead of static holds or brute-force ab work, focus on dynamic, multi-planar movements that train core control, not just strength. Exercises like bird-dogs, pallof presses, side planks with leg lifts, single-leg Romanian deadlifts, and half-kneeling chops/lifts all of which support better running mechanics without compromising mobility.
Zemková’s argument is refreshing in a field that too often fragments the body into measurable parts. While not a data-driven, the article weaves together a compelling narrative, and adds nuance to debates around cadence, stride length, and running economy. However, the perspective would benefit from a deeper dive into gender, aging, or population differences. There’s also a missed opportunity to explore how habitual desk-bound postures or sedentary lifestyles interact with these dynamics.
The effects of uphill training on the maximal velocity and performance of middle-distance runners: a randomized controlled trial
This trial tested how three uphill running gradients (shallow 2.5%, intermediate 5.1%, steep 7.6%) affected sprint speed (Vmax), 800m TT performance, and strength endurance (1-min burpees) in 40 youth middle-distance runners over 8 weeks. Results showed that steep uphill training produced the most significant improvements across all three performance markers, with intermediate gradients also enhancing 800m times. Shallow hills? Meh, no significant gains. Testing involved treadmill hill intervals and consistent outdoor performance measurements (so while results are promising, real-world applications, with terrain, footing, and pacing variability, might not be identical). The small sample size (n=10 per group) and mixed training histories across runners may weaken the generalizability (esp. to seasoned trail or ultrarunners with more complex movement patterns and recovery needs).
Practical takeaways:
– Steep uphill intervals (~7.6%) are highly effective for boosting sprint speed, endurance, and strength in middle-distance runners.
– Intermediate hills (~5.1%) can still significantly improve race times, especially for distances like 800–3000m.
– Customizing gradient choice based on athlete needs and event distance makes training more precise and impactful.
This study lands right in the sweet spot of my training philosophy: specificity, adaptation, and nuance. In other words, match the slope to the runner’s reality. This is a new and relevant study because it directly compares chronic effects of different uphill gradients: this paper brings precision to the party. Not all climbs are created equal.
Associations between training load, heart rate variability, perceptual fatigue, sleep, and injury in endurance athletes during a 12-week training mesocycle
This exploratory study tracked 15 endurance runners over a 12-week mesocycle to understand how training load (external/internal), heart rate variability, perceived fatigue, and sleep relate to injury occurrence and severity. Weekly data was collected using wearables, self-report tools, and validated injury surveys. Results showed that sleep-related impairment (not sleep quality per se) was significantly higher during injured weeks. Interestingly, high-severity injuries were preceded by lower training loads, lower HRV, poorer wellbeing, and worse sleep-related impairment, suggesting that athletes may already be under strain before injury formally presents.
Practical takeaways:
– Sleep-related impairment (daytime fatigue, trouble functioning) is a more useful injury signal than just poor sleep quality. Watch for changes even if your sleep hours stay the same.
– Low training load before high-severity injury may be a red flag. Not recovery, but under-response to brewing trouble. Don’t assume low volume means low risk.
– HRV dips + low wellbeing + lower internal load (sRPE) might signal a physiological tipping point before major injury, individual baselines matter more than absolute values.
This paper syncs well with my values around body awareness and recovery literacy. It challenges the common assumption that more training = more injury, instead pointing to subtle cues, like a dip in load, or slightly worse sleep, that precede big problems. Subjective wellbeing isn’t fluff, it is a legit early indicator of injury severity. This study is a fresh, relevant contribution because it weaves together multiple real-time variables in a longitudinal, week-by-week analysis. But the small N and reliance on self-reported data limit the strength of conclusions. The result that lower load preceded more severe injuries is intriguing and goes against many assumptions. But is this an early protective taper from the athlete… or a precursor to breakdown? Causality remains murky. While not groundbreaking, it’s the kind of integrative, athlete-centered monitoring that coaches should care about. I like it.
This cross-sectional study surveyed 601 runners across half-marathon, marathon, and ultra distances to screen for anxiety and sleep issues using validated tools. Results showed 13.5% screened positive for anxiety and 28.8% for sleep problems, with a significant overlap between the two. Interestingly, rates were highest in half-marathoners, not ultrarunners. Age under 29, sport experience +10 years, frequent competition, and injury-related absences were all associated factors. That raises important questions about the long-term psychological toll of endurance sports or possibly unresolved issues around identity, pressure, or injury cycles in seasoned athletes. While women had higher rates than men, sex differences weren’t statistically significant.
Practical takeaways:
– The finding that ultrarunners aren’t the most anxious flips some assumptions, suggesting that the psychological load of sport might not scale linearly with distance. This surprising result invites more questions than answers.
– Positive anxiety screens strongly co-occurred with sleep problems, suggesting these issues may be intertwined and need to be addressed together.
– Athletes competing more than 4x a year and those with recent injury absences were more likely to experience sleep issues, highlighting the importance of recovery-focused planning.
– The authors nod to the idea that ultra running might follow a U-shaped curve, where moderate exercise supports mental health, but excessive volume/intensity may increase risk for anxiety, insomnia, or overtraining-related issues.
– While women did show higher rates of anxiety and sleep problems, the study found no statistically significant differences by sex. This challenges assumptions and emphasizes that mental health screening shouldn’t be gender-targeted alone.
Any research (in running) about mental health is worth highlighting. And it is always good to stop valorizing sleepless nights and bonked-out ultras as badges of honor. The study could be improved by qualitative follow-up to understand why some runners are more vulnerable and whether coping mechanisms (e.g., sport as self-medication) explain subgroup variation.
Sports bra tightness affects respiratory muscle fatigue, breathing pattern, and perceptual responses during running
Last, but not least, this study tested how different sports bra underband tightness levels affect breathing mechanics, respiratory muscle fatigue, and perceived effort during high-intensity treadmill running. Researchers tracked ventilation and thoraco-abdominal coordination in 10 elite junior female runners across three conditions: tight, preferred, and loose. The tighter the band, the more respiratory muscle fatigue and perceived breathlessness. The looser bra, while potentially less supportive, allowed for easier breathing, better ventilatory patterns, and reduced fatigue in inspiratory muscles.
Practical takeaways:
– Looser bras = easier breathing. A 15% loosening of the underband reduced diaphragm fatigue and improved perceived breathing comfort during hard runs.
– Tight bras = higher ventilation cost. The tightest bras increased ventilation by ~8%, indicating your body has to work harder to breathe under constraint.
– Fit is a performance variable. Bra design impacts breathing coordination, fatigue, and potentially race performance (esp. at intensity).
This new, relevant study’s combination of quantitative respiratory data and perceptual metrics is powerful, though the sample (elite juniors with likely smaller breast sizes) limits broad generalization. Still, it’s well-controlled and methodologically sound. The study does a nice job weaving in broader implications for gendered physiology, referencing female-specific respiratory constraints and gaps in equipment design. The lack of including diverse body types and breast sizes limits how actionable the data is for recreational or older female runners, those who may most benefit from breathable, supportive gear. I love this study for putting breath, biomechanics, and body autonomy front and center.
Blog Post: The Debate Over Easy vs. High-Intensity Training is a Waste of Time. Here’s Why by Steve Magness, Substack Essay, 2025
Worth mentioning is Steve Magness’ sledgehammer take to the recurring debate over Zone 2 vs. HIIT training, arguing that it’s a false dichotomy rooted in short-sighted science and ahistorical thinking. He champions a blended, periodized approach built on a century of coaching evolution, emphasizing that easy running’s value lies in long-term adaptations that most short-term studies fail to capture. While his critique of reductionist lab research is sharp and compelling (esp. his call to treat real-world coaching as science), Magness occasionally overstates his case. He dismisses academic studies (like the one I mentioned last week) a little too easily and underplays the value of mechanistic research in advancing our understanding when paired with field insights. His tone flirts with oversimplification, portraying the science community as naïvely out of touch while romanticizing the wisdom of coaches. Still, it’s a strong, needed provocation that nudges researchers and practitioners to meet in the messy middle where actual athletes live and train. Thank you Nabeel, for sharing this one with me.
Worthy footnotes
Implementing Heat Suit Training to Maintain Augmented Hemoglobin Mass After an Altitude Camp in Elite Biathletes and Cross-Country Skiers
by Leif Christian Tallaksen, Master’s Thesis, Inland Norway University, 2025
This master thesis explored whether wearing a heat suit 3x per week for 50 min. over 3.5 weeks could help maintain elevated hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) in elite biathletes and cross-country skiers following an altitude training camp (~1850m). Athletes in the heat training group maintained their gains in Hbmass and red blood cell volume (RBCV), while those in the sea-level control group saw Hbmass decline. VO2max and exercise economy showed positive trends in the heat-trained group—though not statistically different from control, they hint at performance potential. Translation: sweat now, keep your red blood cells later. The student used a simple, low-cost intervention to preserve hard-earned physiological adaptations for endurance athletes. While the sample is small, the results offer practical promise. The study only includes elite biathletes and skiers, so we don’t know how this translates to trail or ultra runners. Altitude boosts are great, but the afterglow fades unless you support it. The idea that we can extend adaptations with passive heat stress speaks to a mindset of smart, sustainable performance. I wish we had access to the full text and a bigger, more diverse sample. Still, it’s promising, and it makes me want to test out heat sessions post-altitude. Not flashy, but quietly clever.
Do I Need Coaching to Achieve a Learning Goal? Coaching, Goal Orientation, and Goal Framing: A Randomized Control Trial Study
by Andreea G. Nicolau, Octav Sorin Candel, Ticu Constantin, Ad Kleingeld, Current Psychology, 2025
This large-scale randomized control trial tested how executive coaching interacts with individuals’ goal orientation (mastery vs. performance) and how the framing of those goals (learning vs. performance) impacts perceived goal achievement. Coaching was especially effective when individuals pursued learning goals. Interestingly, those who tried to pursue learning goals without coaching reported lower perceived success, especially if they were already mastery-oriented. This means even motivated people benefit from structured support. The study dug into the motivational mechanics of coaching rather than just asking if it works. The research is has a well-powered RCT, with nuanced theory, cross-industry relevance, and clear practical implications for coaching across contexts. Translation: coaching helps everyone, but it’s especially potent when your goals are framed as learning, not just performance, and trying to achieve learning goals without coaching may backfire, especially for highly mastery-driven folks. Support matters! Coaches (and coachees) should be aware of how they frame goals, reframing toward learning can unlock better outcomes.
This one speaks straight to our core coaching values: cultivating growth through self-awareness, purpose, and reflection. It confirms what we often feel in trail coaching but now have the science to back it up: mindset and framing matter. Especially when we’re chasing non-linear growth. It also gently roasts the idea that just being “motivated” is enough. Turns out, even those with a strong inner compass need maps, feedback, and relational support. The study goes beyond the basics, asks the harder questions (“who benefits how?”), and tests them well.
Principles of Effective Nutrition in Sports
by Pardayev Yunus Sobirovich, Educator Insights: A Journal of Teaching Theory and Practice, 2025
This qualitative study explores how 30 athletes across disciplines understand and apply sports nutrition, revealing solid awareness of carbs and protein but significant gaps around micronutrients, hydration, and nutrient timing. Cultural food traditions, economic realities, and reliance on informal sources like peers or social media shape nutritional choices more than formal education or guidelines. While far from groundbreaking, the study is a useful reminder that effective nutrition isn’t one-size-fits-all, it must be culturally grounded, accessible, and personalized. We train through life, and nutrition isn’t a separate silo but a lived, adaptive part of an athlete’s whole world.
Breathe‑Run‑Guide: A Review of Personal Breathing Guidance Systems in Running
by Severin Bernhart, Thomas Finkenzeller, Rade Kutil, SN Computer Science, 2025
This paper reviews the state of wearable systems designed to guide breathing in real-time during running (“Breathe-Run-Guides”). It dives into the technological and physiological challenges of creating systems that are fully wearable, low-latency, and capable of detecting and guiding breath phases (e.g., inhale, exhale) during motion. Despite promising developments, the review finds only one system that meets the full criteria (Strive), and no system yet provides real-time phase-based feedback to guide, for example, longer exhales. The authors argue for future integration of deep learning models and neuroscience-inspired algorithms to achieve this goal. This is a technically rich and valuable synthesis. That said, it’s very much a review of possibilities. Only one system (Strive) was found that meets all the review’s criteria, and even that one doesn’t yet offer instantaneous breath-phase manipulation. The article could have more critically addressed the risks of feedback overload or the psychological downsides of external breath control. Also missing is what runners want from these systems isn’t deeply explored. Still this study provides the first rigorous synthesis of real-time, in-motion breath guidance systems in running . It ties it to physiological and psychological outcomes, like HRV and RPE.
The Relationship Between Self-Determination, Self-Efficacy, Exercise Commitment, and Exercise Persistence in Running Crew Participants
by Jung Eun-song
This Korean study explored what keeps runners committed to their crews and training, finding that autonomy and social connection (not just feeling competent) boost self-efficacy, which in turn drives exercise commitment and persistence. Using survey data from 391 running crew members, the researchers showed that motivation thrives on feeling free and supported, not just skilled. While not revolutionary, the study adds solid evidence to what many runners and coaches already sense: relationships and agency matter more than performance for long-term engagement. It’s a refreshing, crew-centered reminder that vibes, not just volume, keep us going.
The Effect of Running Speed on Cadence and Running Kinetics
by Abbey Leacox et al., International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2025
This cross-sectional study examined how increasing running speed affects cadence, stride length, and ground reaction forces (GRFs) in 30 experienced runners. As speed ramped up from 2.68 m/s to 3.83 m/s, cadence rose (from ~169 to ~178 steps/min), step and stance times decreased, and all GRFs increased significantly, including vertical impact peak and braking forces. Interestingly, about a quarter of runners showed little cadence change, relying instead on increased stride length to go faster. This is a solid and useful study, but not groundbreaking (that’s why I placed it in the footnotes). So translation: cadence gets a lot of attention in regards to injury-prevention, but this shows it’s just one part of a shifting puzzle. As speed increases, even experienced runners face rising impact loads. A higher cadence doesn’t always buffer against high GRFs, especially at faster paces. More impact doesn’t automatically mean more injury, but it does raise risk factors. Shoe type, running surface, and individual gait still matter a lot.
The study adds relevant nuance by confirming earlier findings. The methodology is tidy, but some it’s still limited by small sample size, gender imbalance, and no control over footwear or leg length measurements. It doesn’t tell us much about trail runners, downhill kinetics, or fatigue effects, but it does challenge oversimplified views that “just increase cadence” will fix everything. The subset of non-cadence-changers is quite fascinating: their biomechanical choices (longer strides, maybe?) might reveal just as much about injury risk and adaptation as the headline averages.
Walking and running in people who are hypermobile: A scoping review
by Hook et al., Gait & Posture, 2025
This scoping review dives into how generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) affects walking and running, pulling together findings from 25 studies. Researchers looked at differences in gait, muscle activity, balance, and biomechanics between hyper- and non-hypermobile individuals. While some trends emerged, like reduced ankle plantarflexion and proprioception in GJH, there were conflicting or inconclusive results for many parameters, especially in running. The authors highlight a serious research gap: almost no studies focused on hypermobile runners, and fewer still explored interventions or adaptations relevant to athletic populations. Real-world trail or endurance running scenarios are absent. This is the first scoping review to compile and assess gait and running data specifically on people with hypermobility. It’s particularly relevant for coaches and clinicians working with athletes who present with joint laxity or a diagnosis like hEDS. Hypermobile individuals often exhibit altered ankle mechanics (e.g., reduced plantarflexion at toe-off), which could impact efficiency and increase injury risk during running. Impaired proprioception and muscle activation patterns may influence balance and gait stability, especially under fatigue or uneven terrain. Coaches should be alert to signs of joint instability and consider proprioceptive training, strength work, and foot/ankle support strategies for hypermobile runners.
Finding the Fastest Race Locations for Non-Elite IRONMAN® Age Group Triathletes
by Knechtle et al., Trends in Sport Sciences, 2025
This IRONMAN® study serves as a compelling reminder for trail and ultra runners that race location is a major performance variable. The researchers sifted through nearly 700,000 age-group finisher records across 20 years and 65 IRONMAN® events to determine which races produced the fastest times across swim, bike, and run segments. Conclusion? Course characteristics, like flat vs. hilly terrain, water vs. bay swims, rolling vs. flat bike paths, and even temperature ranges, play a statistically significant role in how well athletes perform. In short, fast athletes are partly made by fast courses. For trail and ultra, that translates into something we often intuit but rarely quantify: not all elevation is created equal, and not all distances should be approached with the same pacing, gear, or goals.
Practically speaking, trail runners can take a page from this playbook by being more analytical and intentional about race selection. If you’re aiming for a PR or specific performance benchmark, courses with smoother terrain, lower altitude, or cooler climates might increase your odds. Conversely, if you’re trying to grow your technical or mental toughness, pick a course with brutal elevation, exposed ridgelines, or gnarly weather risk. This study also hints at a smarter way to plan your season, match your training block (heat training, altitude prep, vert focus) to a course that rewards that investment. It even suggests tailoring race choice to your discipline-specific strengths: e.g., if climbing is your superpower but descending isn’t, go for races with sustained ascents but less technical downhill.
– Race selection as strategy: Use course profile data (elevation gain/loss, altitude, terrain type) alongside your training history to choose races where your current strengths shine. Build a season around races that let you lean into your skillset.
– Play to your weakness too: Want to work on descending or technical trail skills? Choose a race with just enough difficulty to stretch you without overwhelming you.
– Data-back your a-race goals: You can cross-reference trail race conditions (historical temps, vert per mile, terrain type) with your own best performances to find your sweet spot. Use race reports, GPX files, and past splits to simulate or predict outcomes.
Foot kinematics and running dynamics in children and adolescents with flexible flatfoot
by Harald Böhm et al., Gait & Posture, 2025
Not all feet are created equal… And not all are meant to land the same way. This study dives into the messy, marvelous mechanics of flatfooted youth runners and finds that their stride choices are strategic. Weak calves and stiff ankles make forefoot running tough, even if it’s biomechanically gentler. So what’s the play? Not orthotics, but empowerment: strength, mobility, and a movement style that works for your body. Flat feet don’t mean flat-out failure, they just need a little support, literally and metaphorically. Build ankle dorsiflexion with knee-extended calf stretches, and add single-leg heel raises to strengthen the push-off phase. Consistency over correction, help the body do what it’s already trying to do, just better.
Biomechanics Associated with Bone Stress Injury in Athletes Differ by Proximal and Distal Anatomical Locations: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
by Gaudette LW, Ackerman KE, Bouxsein ML, et al. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 2025
Ever feel like your pelvis is trying to escape on uphills? This study might have an answer. By splitting bone stress injuries (BSIs) into proximal and distal groups, researchers found that not all BSIs run the same biomechanical path. Runners with prior proximal BSIs (like femoral neck, sacrum, pelvis), bounced higher and stepped slower (esp. when race pace kicked in). Meanwhile, distal BSI folks are indistinguishable from those with clean records. The takeaway: your gait’s quirks may tell a site-specific injury story, and what happens at tempo might matter more than your easy-day glide. For coaches and runners, that means dialing in cadence, reducing vertical bounce, and paying closer attention to form when the pace picks up.
Influence of Long-Distance Trail Running on Blood Hemostasis at the World Mountain Trail Running Championship 2023 – A Pilot Study
by Schobersberger et al., Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 2025
This pilot study explored how an 86.9 km mountain ultra at the 2023 World Championships impacted blood coagulation in seven elite runners. Blood tests taken before and after the race revealed strong inflammatory responses, like elevated core temps, IL-6, and CRP, alongside key shifts in coagulation markers (increased factor VIII and von Willebrand factor, decreased plasminogen, and signs of reduced fibrinolysis). These changes mirror those seen in critically ill patients, raising questions about how extreme endurance events stress the hemostatic system. Despite these physiological changes, viscoelastic testing (ClotPro) showed only subtle alterations, suggesting that traditional lab markers may not fully capture real-time clotting dynamics during or after ultra events. The study’s small sample size and short follow-up limit conclusions, but its use of advanced testing methods in a race setting is a notable first, and a call for more research on long-term implications for endurance athletes, especially those at higher cardiovascular risk. Anyways, in short, clotting risks may be higher than perceived (esp. in hot, downhill-heavy ultras). Intense ultras may temporarily impair blood clot breakdown due to inflammation and heat.
Quality of Life Among Female Runners in Slovakia: The Role of Running Experience, Purpose, Age, and Weekly Running Habits
by Trulíková V., Písečná M., Mitašík P., Gregor T., Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2025
Inflammatory Response to Ultramarathon Running: A Review of IL-6, CRP, and TNF-α
by Waśkiewicz et al., International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025
This review gives us a behind-the-scenes look at the immune system’s response after you cross the finish line of an ultra: IL-6 shoots up fast right after the race, CRP rises more slowly and sticks around for days, and TNF-α (another inflammatory marker) mostly stays quiet, especially in experienced runners. It turns out the body isn’t falling apart; it’s running a well-coordinated recovery process. Trained runners tend to manage the inflammation more efficiently, but extreme races (like desert ultras or multi-day events) can still push even seasoned athletes into deeper, longer-lasting stress. Running ultras in hot, dry environments substantially increases IL-6 and CRP—keep this in mind for race prep, fueling, and post-race recovery. What’s important here is that inflammation is your body’s way of signaling and healing. Feeling okay a day or two after a race doesn’t necessarily mean your system has fully recovered. This review reminds us that recovery isn’t just about rest and food, but also about giving your body time to finish the work it started during the race. It’s a useful, science-backed nudge to respect the invisible side of recovery and to let your body lead, not your race calendar.
The Relationship Between Ground Contact Time, Backward Foot Velocity, and Joint Mechanics in Running
by Tomohiro Murasawa and Michihiko Koseki (村澤智啓・小関道彦, 『ランニング学研究』2025年, 第36巻第1号, pp.1–11)
This study explores how three modifiable gait variables—ground contact time (GCT), backward foot velocity (BFV) before landing, and stride frequency (SF)—relate to joint loading during the stance phase of running. By comparing high-performance runners (HR) with non-HR counterparts at a set pace of 3.0 m/s, researchers found that shorter GCT and higher BFV were characteristic of HR and associated with higher ankle loads (plantar flexion moment and negative work) and lower knee loads (negative work). Crucially, BFV did not correlate with stride frequency, suggesting it may offer a unique, untapped pathway for gait retraining. So, translation: Increasing BFV before foot strike may help reduce knee loading without needing to increase cadence (good news for runners wary of overstriding corrections). Shorter GCT and higher BFV are biomechanical traits of elite runners; coaching cues that promote backward sweeping of the foot before contact could help emulate this. This is a valuable study. However, using a single fixed running speed (3.0 m/s) limits its generalizability (esp. since this is well below race pace for the HR group). Also, while BFV is promising as an intervention target, implementing it in real-world training remains murky: how exactly do you “increase BFV” in a way that sticks?
Effectiveness of 30 km running as training for a full marathon – A study focusing on pace changes
by Ryuichiro Inaba, Nao Hirakawa, Takehiro Tagawa (稲葉龍一郎・平川菜央・田川武弘, ランニング学研究, 2025年, 36巻1号, pp.63–64)
This study analyzed over 6,000 race data sets(!) to assess the pacing patterns of 30km runs as marathon training. While most 30km runners (78.4%) maintained an even pace (similar to half marathoners), the timing and frequency of pace drop-offs mirrored that of the full marathon, with many runners slowing down after 60% of the race. Notably, serious pacing collapses (over 18.3% slowdown) were more common among less experienced runners. So, a well-paced 30km run mimics both the physical and psychological demands of the marathon’s first two-thirds, making it a valuable race-prep session. This correlates with my belief in simulation-based learning: running a 30km is physical, but also rehearses decision-making, pacing intuition, and energy management under race-like stress, but it also cautions against false confidence: just because you survive a 30km doesn’t mean you’re ready to dance with the final 12.2. This study shines as a data-driven lens into what’s often an anecdotal practice in marathon prep. The dataset is impressively large, and the use of relative pacing and survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier!) is novel and appropriate. It adds fresh insight into where and when breakdowns occur, not just if they happen. However, it doesn’t explore physiological or psychological correlates (e.g., glycogen depletion, mental fatigue), which would deepen understanding of the pacing collapse. Also, 30km runs may vary in conditions and intent, was everyone “racing” or just “training”?
The Effects of Wearing Thick-Soled Running Shoes on Lower Limb Kinematics During Running
by Ryusei Yamaguchi et al. 山口龍星, 奥貫拓実, 吉岡利貢ほか｜第35回ランニング学会大会・2025年
This Japanese study explored how thick-soled (carbon-plated) shoes like the Vaporfly Next% affect lower limb biomechanics compared to traditional racing flats in 68 collegiate runners. Researchers found that 25.6% changed their foot strike pattern, most often from forefoot to midfoot, when switching to thick-soled shoes. This shift correlated with reduced plantarflexion and increased foot eversion in early stance, potentially raising injury risk (e.g., Achilles tendinopathy, MTSS). The study is timely and valuable given the widespread use of carbon shoes and shows that footwear can subtly, but significantly, alter biomechanics, even in trained runners. It’s a good reminder to be body-aware and adapt coaching or training accordingly.
Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training on Mitigating High-Fat Diet-Induced Damage in Rat Testicular Tissue
by Faezeh Fayyazian, Marziyeh Saghebjoo, Mehdi Hedayati, Hadi Sarir, Preventive Nutrition and Food Science, 2025
This study adds meaningful nuance to the conversation around high-intensity training and male reproductive health, particularly under conditions of metabolic stress like a high-fat diet. While HIIT improved testosterone levels and some metabolic parameters, its effects on antioxidant defenses were mixed, suggesting possible trade-offs between performance-enhancing adaptations and redox balance. For athletes and coaches, the findings support the potential role of targeted high-intensity training in mitigating diet-related reproductive dysfunction, but also highlight the importance of dose, context, and recovery in designing sustainable interventions.
Effects of acute treadmill running following administration of lipopolysaccharide on subsequent changes in microglial activation and depressive-like behavior in rats
by Sugimoto et al., Behavioural Brain Research, 2025
Here’s the good news for any runner who’s crawled out the door feeling like roadkill after a virus or rough patch: this study says your effort might be doing more than you think. Inflammation in the brain, linked to mood, fatigue, and that “off” feeling, can be soothed by even short, gentle runs. And not just before the storm, but after it hits. While the rats didn’t lace up, they did show that the antidepressant magic of movement is also cellular, quiet, and surprisingly precise. Microglia, the brain’s immune cells, respond to our movement like a tuning dial. The study confirms our believe in the healing rhythm of movement. Even low-intensity exercise can help suppress brain inflammation under stress or immune challenge. So the antidepressant effect of exercise may depend on when you do it, not just how hard. Exercising after an immune challenge (rather than only before) could still be helpful. However, too much intensity could backfire by acting as an additional stressor.
From Novice to Master(s) Level Athlete: A Longitudinal Analysis of Psychological Changes in a Marathon Runner Completing 119 Marathons
by Xiuxia Liu, Lisheng Huang, Shunying Lin — Behavioral Sciences, 2025
This single-case longitudinal study tracks the psychological evolution of a Chinese marathon runner (119 marathons over 20+ years) from novice to master-level athlete. This is a nice contribution to the psychology of long-term endurance athletes. It challenges static views of motivation and identity by showing how athletes internalize shifting social roles and physical realities. Very few studies have followed a runner’s psychological evolution across decades. This one goes beyond snapshots and offers a theory-backed, life-span model grounded in deep cultural context. The “motivation-physicality-society” model synthesizes classic frameworks into something new for our field. However, I would love to see this framework applied to multiple athletes, across genders and sociocultural contexts. There’s rich ground here for comparative longitudinal studies. Still Mr. A. shows how the meaning of running can evolve. It’s a gentle nudge toward redefining success, with a long-game mindset.
Wrapping the Transverse Foot Arch Improves Running Economy
by Hui Tang & Owen N. Beck, Journal of Experimental Biology, 2025
This is an interesting study: wrapping the transverse arch as an experimental manipulation of evolutionary morphology. They explored whether tightly wrapping the transverse arch of the human foot improves running economy by mimicking evolved traits of foot stiffness. The wrapped condition led to lower leg muscle activation and reduced whole-body metabolic cost (~0.9%), while also increasing ankle gear ratio and decreasing joint angular velocities. Surprisingly, the intervention did not increase mechanical energy return from the medial longitudinal arch. The main benefit seems to stem from improved muscle efficiency, not from energy recycling. That said, the sample size (n=16) is modest, and while effects were statistically significant, some are small in absolute terms. The biggest limitation? This only looked at barefoot running. Most of us don’t race marathons sans shoes. The practical takeaways needs follow-up testing in real scenarios.
Variation of Bone‑Related and Inflammatory Biomarkers After a Half‑Marathon Running in Trained Subjects
by C. Vassalle et al., European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2025
This study tracked how bone turnover markers and vitamin D levels shifted in trained runners before, immediately after, and 24 hours post a half-marathon. The key finding? Bone biomarkers spiked right after the race (by up to 33%) but returned to baseline within a day, suggesting a transient and adaptive physiological response. The immune-inflammatory index didn’t change significantly, pointing to a lack of major inflammatory stress. Runners had higher baseline vitamin D and bone marker levels than non-athletes, likely reflecting chronic adaptation to training and outdoor exposure. So, moderate endurance efforts like half-marathons can temporarily increase bone turnover, possibly reflecting healthy remodeling rather than damage. It gently challenges the idea that endurance training is always a risk for bone loss, especially when paired with outdoor exposure and adequate vitamin D. The study reinforces the value of consistent outdoor training for bone metabolism.
Other running related studies
– Kinanthropometric Predictors of Event-Specific Performance in Track and Field Athletes: A Narrative Review by Mansi George, Sports Science & Health Advances, 2025
– Bias Compensation in Pressure Mat Used in Running Trials: A Comparative Study with a Force Plate by Jacob Andersson and Morgan Lindberg
– Variability in Center of Pressure (CoP) During Running Gait by Tindra Thelin & Alva Wittenmark, Bachelor’s Thesis, Lund University, 2025
– Metabolic Regulation and the Interplay with Response and Performance During an Ultraendurance Race by Joanna Hanner, William Apró, Marcus Moberg, Master’s thesis (submitted to Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise), 2025
– Modeling Physiological and Thermoregulatory Responses During an Olympic Triathlon by Yermakova et al., Journal of Thermal Biology, 2025
About Waybound 