ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Case report on the marathon preparation of two middle-aged women aiming for a 4-hour finish.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recreational marathoners targeting the 4-h benchmark are underrepresented in the literature compared with elite runners, despite constituting a substantial share of participants. This case report documents the multifactorial, real-world preparation undertaken by two eumenorrheic middle-aged women and examines how training load, nutritional education, changes in body mass and composition, race-day weather conditions, and pacing strategy collectively contributed to an ∼20% improvement in performance. Methods: The retrospective analysis included training records from the 26 weeks preceding the marathon, outcomes of the Field-Based Running Test (lactate threshold velocity, mean velocity during the 5-min All-Out Trial, and maximal velocity), changes in body mass and composition, nutritional recommendations, race-day weather conditions, pacing strategy, and self-reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Results: Weekly running volume ranged 46-65 km, with a predominant frequency of four sessions per week. Both women completed two long runs ≥30 km during the final 4 weeks prior to the race. When classified relative to target marathon velocity, their intensity distributions appeared similar; however, the Field-Test-anchored system revealed clear differences: Woman A accumulated substantially more work in Zones 3-6, whereas Woman B trained proportionally more in Zones 1-2. Both athletes reduced body mass primarily through fat loss, but Woman A registered nearly twice the percentage decrease in absolute body mass and fat mass, and additionally showed a marked decline in muscle mass, accounting for roughly one-third of the total reduction. Both athletes improved their marathon performance by approximately 20%. Positive split pacing strategy observed in both cases. Neither athlete reported gastrointestinal problems during the marathon, held in 0.0 °C-2.2 °C air temperatures with wind speeds of 1.6-7.1 m s Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a combination of prescribed training load, nutritional education, body mass reduction primarily through fat mass loss, as well as optimized pacing strategy can substantially improve marathon performance in middle-age women targeting a ∼4-h finish. Despite experiencing health issues in the final weeks of preparation, both participants achieved meaningful progress, underscoring the practical value of an integrated approach. Although not generalizable, these insights may assist coaches and athletes in designing effective preparation strategies for similar goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.