Open Access

Do women reduce the gap to men in ultra-marathon running?

  • Beat Knechtle1, 2Email author,
  • Fabio Valeri2,
  • Pantelis T. Nikolaidis3,
  • Matthias A. Zingg2,
  • Thomas Rosemann2 and
  • Christoph A. Rüst2
SpringerPlus20165:672

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2326-y

Received: 8 March 2016

Accepted: 11 May 2016

Published: 20 May 2016

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine sex differences across years in performance of runners in ultra-marathons lasting from 6 h to 10 days (i.e. 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 144, and 240 h). Data of 32,187 finishers competing between 1975 and 2013 with 93,109 finishes were analysed using multiple linear regression analyses. With increasing age, the sex gap for all race durations increased. Across calendar years, the gap between women and men decreased in 6, 72, 144 and 240 h, but increased in 24 and 48 h. The men-to-women ratio differed among age groups, where a higher ratio was observed in the older age groups, and this relationship varied by distance. In all durations of ultra-marathon, the participation of women and men varied by age (p < 0.001), indicating a relatively low participation of women in the older age groups. In summary, between 1975 and 2013, women were able to reduce the gap to men for most of timed ultra-marathons and for those age groups where they had relatively high participation.

Keywords

Sex differenceUltra-endurancePerformanceAthlete

Background

The comparison of endurance performance between sexes has been a main topic of scientific research for decades (Lepers et al. 2013; Parnell 1954; Pate and Kriska 1984). Nowadays, women compete in the same endurance and ultra-endurance sports disciplines as men. However, this was not always the case. For example, women were considered too weak to compete in running competitions in the Olympic Games well into the twentieth century (www.olympic.org). When Kathrine Switzer competed in 1967 in the ‘Boston Marathon’ as the first woman ever to run an official marathon, she pretended to be a man to be able to run in the race (www.baa.org). Although she finished the race in 4:20 h:min well ahead of many men, the organizer of ‘Boston Marathon’ tried to remove her from the race. Only in 1972, women were officially accepted to compete in the ‘Boston Marathon’ (www.baa.org).

Once women were admitted to marathon running, the comparison of sex differences in marathon running started to attract scientific interest. Whipp and Ward (1992) and Tatem et al. (2004) especially focused on running results and both predicted that women would outrun men in the future. Whipp and Ward (1992) predicted that women would outrun men in marathon running in 1998 while Tatem et al. (2004) extrapolated 100 m Olympic running sprints results from 1904 to 2004 and projected women to overtake men in 100 m sprint in the 2156 Olympic Games. Since women entered the professional running world more than half a century later than men their improvements in performance were higher than in men in the first 30 years (Tatem et al. 2004; Whipp and Ward 1992). This triggered the conclusion that women would outrun men at some point as in 1998 (Whipp and Ward 1992) or in 2156 (Tatem et al. 2004). While women were be able to reduce the sex difference in performance in the second half of the twentieth century in running from 100 m to the marathon distance (Tatem et al. 2004; Whipp and Ward 1992), Holden (2004) found a newer trend of an increasing sex difference between 1989 and 2004. In the Olympic Games, in seven out of eight disciplines in running from 100 m to the marathon distance, the mean sex difference in performance increased from 10.4 to 11.0 %, with an exception of Paula Radcliffe’s world record in marathon running in 2003 (www.iaaf.org/home). It is worth to mention that the sex difference in world records in marathon running increased since then from 8.4 % in 2003 to 9.5 % in 2013 (www.iaaf.org/home).

The occasions where women were able to beat men in long-distance running events were very rare exceptions and happened only on recreational competitions, but never on professional competitions (Knechtle et al. 2008). Therefore, it seemed that women would, if at all, outrun men first in ultra-marathons as Pamela Reed did in the 2002 and 2003 ‘Badwater’ (www.badwater.com) or Hiroko Okiyama in the 2007 ‘Deutschlandlauf’ (www.deutschlandlauf.com). Although ultra-marathons are held all over the world, official World Championships exist only for 100 km ultra-marathons (www.iaaf.org/home). Therefore, the world’s elite in ultra-running may not compete in a single race where women might outrun men. In running races up to the marathon distance, results of World Championships, Olympic Games or a World Major Series can be compared among each other. In ultra-marathons, however, race results cannot be compared because races are not standardized due to different environmental conditions such as differences in race courses and differences in changes in altitude. Generally, events over different distances with different altitude gain or differences in course profiles cannot be compared properly. Therefore, in our opinion, the best possibility to investigate trends in ultra-marathon running performance with sex difference needs to include all existing races over a certain distance or duration.

A study including the longest ultra-marathons events held up to 10 days is required to evaluate the ongoing question whether women would outrun men in ultra-marathons. In this context, the aim of the present study was to examine sex differences across time in runners of ultra-marathons varying from 6 h to 10 days with the hypothesis that women would reduce the gap to men in the last decades.

Methods

Ethics

All procedures used in the study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kanton St. Gallen, Switzerland, with a waiver of the requirement for informed consent of the participants given the fact that the study involved the analysis of publicly available data.

Data sampling and data analysis

The data set for this study was obtained from the race website of the ‘Deutsche Ultramarathon-Vereinigung’ (DUV) (www.ultra-marathon.org). This website records all race results of all ultra-marathons held worldwide. Data of all competitors who ever participated in a 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 h, 6 days (144 h) and 10 days (240 h) ultra-marathon held worldwide between 1975 and 2013 were analysed. In time-limited races, athletes perform laps which are counted by lap counters or electronically. Any competitor is listed in the rankings as soon as she/he has completed one lap as minimum distance.

Statistical analysis

We used a multiple linear regression to analyse the gap between men and women (Table 1). To explore which variables may be accounted for, regression distances were graphically displayed against the variables (Fig. 1a, b). Due to the large amount of observations we used smoothing methods (i.e. loess if number of observations <1000 otherwise splines both implemented in the statistical software). The 95 % confidence regions are displayed and the polynomial fit for each ultra-marathon (UM) was added. We included the following variables in the model: sex, age at performance and calendar year of performance. To consider finishers who performed several races we included finisher as random variable in the model, although 48.9 % of the finishers in the data have only one finish. We justified including finisher as random variable by comparing the graphics of distance against age of the finisher with only one known finish with the finishers who have at least five finishes. Both graphs showed similar tendencies (graphs not shown). Visual inspection of Fig. 1a, b suggests using a cubic, quadratic and a cubic relation for age and year. To study the effect of sex we included also interactions. We also considered the heterogeneous variance of each UM-level. The final method was selected by Akaike information criterion (AIC) and visual inspection of the fitted values (Fig. 2a, b).
Table 1

Coefficients and standard errors from a multivariable regression model (1)

 

Coefficient

Standard error

p value

6 h

55.7

0.13

<0.0001

Ultramarathon

 12 h

34.4

0.24

<0.0001

 24 h

87.0

0.35

<0.0001

 48 h

166.3

1.33

<0.0001

 72 h

219.6

6.23

<0.0001

 144 h

463.5

3.99

<0.0001

 240 h

776.9

18.36

<0.0001

Sex (female)

−5.6

0.31

<0.0001

Age

 Age centered linear

−0.25

0.01

<0.0001

 Age centered squared

−0.01

0.00

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

<0.0001

Sex (female) × age

 Age centered linear

0.00

0.03

0.902

 Age centered squared

0.00

0.00

0.007

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.907

Year

 Year linear

−0.30

0.02

<0.0001

 Year squared

0.00

0.00

0.357

Sex (female) × year

 Year linear

0.12

0.05

0.007

 Year squared

−0.01

0.01

0.122

Sex (female) × ultramarathon

 12 h

−1.98

0.53

<0.0001

 24 h

1.33

0.81

0.099

 48 h

5.04

2.76

0.068

 72 h

16.39

14.25

0.250

 144 h

−19.44

8.41

0.021

 240 h

−71.72

31.78

0.024

Ultramarathon 12 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.06

0.02

0.020

 Age centered squared

−0.02

0.00

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.046

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 12 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.02

0.05

0.678

 Age centered squared

0.00

0.00

0.096

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.401

Ultramarathon 24 h × age

 Age centered linear

0.19

0.04

<0.0001

 Age centered squared

−0.04

0.00

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.031

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 24 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.13

0.09

0.131

 Age centered squared

−0.01

0.00

0.002

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.803

Ultramarathon 48 h × age

 Age centered linear

0.63

0.14

<0.0001

 Age centered squared

−0.07

0.01

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.749

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 48 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.05

0.35

0.898

 Age centered squared

−0.01

0.01

0.711

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.484

Ultramarathon 72 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.71

0.54

0.194

 Age centered squared

−0.09

0.02

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.033

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 72 h × age

 Age centered linear

−1.18

1.40

0.398

 Age centered squared

−0.12

0.07

0.088

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.717

Ultramarathon 144 h × age

 Age centered linear

0.29

0.41

0.482

 Age centered squared

−0.18

0.02

<0.0001

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.354

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 144 h × age

 Age centered linear

−0.10

0.99

0.923

 Age centered squared

−0.01

0.04

0.727

 Age centered cube

0.00

0.00

0.276

Ultramarathon 240 h × year

 Year centered linear

2.54

1.87

0.173

 Year centered squared

−0.22

0.07

0.002

 Year centered cube

−0.01

0.01

0.011

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 240 h × age

 Year centered linear

−4.16

3.72

0.264

 Year centered squared

0.21

0.12

0.069

 Year centered cube

0.01

0.01

0.420

Ultramarathon 12 h × year

 Year centered linear

−0.54

0.04

<0.0001

 Year centered squared

0.00

0.00

0.324

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 12 h × year

 Year centered linear

−0.23

0.10

0.018

 Year centered squared

−0.01

0.01

0.222

Ultramarathon 24 h × year

 Year centered linear

−1.32

0.07

<0.0001

 Year centered squared

−0.02

0.01

<0.0001

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 24 h × year

 Year centered linear

−1.01

0.17

<0.0001

 Year centered squared

−0.04

0.02

0.009

Ultramarathon 48 h × year

 Year centered linear

−2.73

0.25

<0.0001

 Year centered squared

−0.04

0.02

0.016

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 48 h × year

 Year centered linear

−2.54

0.53

<0.0001

 Year centered squared

−0.14

0.04

0.001

Ultramarathon 72 h × year

 Year centered linear

−1.92

1.08

0.076

 Year centered squared

−0.26

0.11

0.020

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 72 h × year

 Year centered linear

−1.91

2.61

0.465

 Year centered squared

0.04

0.24

0.864

Ultramarathon 144 h × year

 Year centered linear

0.75

0.84

0.372

 Year centered squared

0.36

0.05

<0.0001

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 144 h × year

 Year centered linear

−1.47

1.91

0.441

 Year centered squared

0.02

0.13

0.896

Ultramarathon 240 h × year

 Year centered linear

1.37

3.46

0.692

 Year centered squared

0.48

0.68

0.480

Sex (female) × ultramarathon 240 h × year

 Year centered linear

5.52

5.88

0.348

 Year centered squared

1.56

1.21

0.196

Variable were centered: age = 46, calendar year = 2007

Fig. 1

Observed distances according to age (a) and calendar year (b). Solid line smoothed curve. Dashed line cubic (a) and squared (b) fit

Fig. 2

Smoothed curve of observed distances (solid line) and fitted distances values from model (1) (dashed line) according to age (a) and calendar year (b)

The final mixed model (1) was:
$$ \begin{aligned} {\text{Distance}} &= {\text{sex}} \times {\text{ultra-marathon}} \times ({\text{age}} + {\text{age}}^{2} + {\text{age}}^{3} ) \\ &\quad + \,{\text{sex}} \times {\text{ultra-marathon}} \times ({\text{year}} + {\text{year}}^{2} ) \\ & \quad +\, {\text{random}}\;{\text{ID}} + {\text{weights}}\;{\text{variance}}\;{\text{UM}} \\ \end{aligned} $$
(1)
Distance is in km, ID is the identification number of the finisher, age is centered with 46 years (mean) and calendar year with 2007 (mean). Reference levels are for ultra-marathon 6 h and for sex male. To study the effect of sex according to age, years, and ultra-marathon we used estimated coefficient which has a p < 0.05 and computed the percentage difference of achieved km between man and women for each ultra-marathon, age and calendar year (Table 2). In addition, a Chi square test examined the variation of finishes of women and men by age group. The magnitude of the association between sex and age group was evaluated by Cramer’s V, which was interpreted as very low (less than 0.20), low (0.20–0.39), modest (0.40–0.69), high (0.70–0.89) or very high association (0.90–1.00) (Bryman and Cramer 2011). The statistical analysis and graphical outputs were performed using the statistical software R, version 3.1.2 (R Development Core Team 2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, www.R-project.org.
Table 2

Average distances in km at reference 6 h, male sex, age 46 years, and calendar year 2007

Ultramarathon

 6 h

55.7

 

 12 h

90.1

 

 24 h

143

 

 48 h

222

 

 72 h

275

 

 144 h

519

 

 240 h

833

 

Average effect of sex

 6 h

−10.0 %

 

 12 h

−8.4 %

 

 24 h

−10.0 %

n.s.

 48 h

−10.0 %

n.s.

 72 h

−10.0 %

n.s.

 144 h

−4.8 %

 

 240 h

−9.3 %

 

Effects in %

 

Year = 2007

Age

 

36 (%)

41 (%)

46 (%)

51 (%)

56 (%)

 

6 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

 

12 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

n.s.

24 h

−2.6

−2.6

−3.0

−3.6

−4.6

 

48 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

n.s.

72 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

n.s.

144 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

n.s.

240 h

−6.8

−8.0

−10.0

−12.5

−15.3

n.s.

Effects in %

 

Age = 46

Calendar year

 

1997 (%)

2002 (%)

2007 (%)

2012 (%)

2017 (%)

 

6 h

−13.0

−11.2

−10.0

−9.5

−9.9

 

12 h

−8.8

−8.0

−8.4

−10.1

−13.3

 

24 h

−0.2

−0.7

−3.0

−7.4

−14.5

 

48 h

3.7

3.3

−0.2

−7.9

−20.9

 

72 h

−13.0

−11.2

−10.0

−9.5

−9.9

n.s.

144 h

−13.0

−11.2

−10.0

−9.5

−9.9

n.s.

240 h

−13.0

−11.2

−10.0

−9.5

−9.9

n.s.

Expressed are percentage difference between women and men. A positive percentage means that women perform better than men and vice versa. For example: women with age 36 years in 2007 performed 2.6 % less than men in ultramarathon 24 h. n.s. interaction effect not significant that is: gap corresponds to ultramarathon 6 h

Results

Data of 32,187 finishers with 93,109 finishes were available. After excluding finishers with missing age, a total of 27,430 finishers and 86,508 finishes were available corresponding to a reduction of 14.8 and 7.1 %, respectively. Sex of one finisher was corrected in the case of a runner who had three runs, twice as female and one as male, assuming that she was female. Each finish should reach a minimum distance of 8, 11, 16, 22, 27, 38, and 49 km for 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 144, and 240 h, respectively, to be included in the analysis sample, which was the case for all finishes.

Overall, 20.7 % of the finishes were performed by women and 79.3 % by men. Among all finishers, 21.7 % were women and 78.3 % were men. A total of 48.9 % of the finishers performed only one finish, 19.0 % performed two finishes and the rest of the finishers achieved three or more successful finishes during the whole period of observation (Table 3). Across calendar years, the number of finishes increased for both women and men for all events. For both women and men, most of the finishes were achieved at the age of 30–50 years (Figs. 3, 4).
Table 3

Distributions of number of finishes per finisher

Number of finishes

Number of finishers

Percentage of finishers (%)

1

13,409

48.9

2

5216

19.0

3

2632

9.6

4

1577

5.7

5

983

3.6

6

719

2.6

7

545

2.0

8

393

1.4

9

275

1.0

10

252

0.9

11

201

0.7

12

169

0.6

13

160

0.6

14

93

0.3

15

100

0.4

16

87

0.3

17

60

0.2

18

71

0.3

19

59

0.2

20

42

0.2

21

38

0.1

22

34

0.1

23

27

0.1

24

19

0.1

≥25

269

1.0

Total

27,430

100.0

Fig. 3

Distribution of finishes according to age (a), calendar year (b)

Fig. 4

Distribution of finishes according to observed distance

The average distance for men in 2007 with five finishes and an age of 46 years was 55.7, 90.1, 143, 222, 275, 519, and 833 km for 6, 12, 24, 72, 144, and 240 h, respectively (Table 2). With increasing age, the sex gap for all race durations increased (Table 2, negative values mean less distance achieved than men whereas positive values mean more distance). Across calendar years, the gap between women and men decreased in 6, 72, 144 and 240 h, but increased in 24 and 48 h (Table 2). For the 1997 and 2007 calendar year at age 46 in the 48 h UM women performed better than men (+3.7 and 3.3 %).

The men-to-women ratio was calculated for each age group for all races (Table 4; Fig. 5). A Chi square test was performed to examine the relationship between sex and age group, i.e. whether men-to-women ratio varied by age, for each race duration. The relationship between these variables was significant for all race durations: χ2 = 193.2, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.09 in 6 h, χ2 = 166.3, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.09 in 12 h, χ2 = 133.8, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.06 in 24 h, χ2 = 61.2, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.11 in 48 h, χ2 = 35.1, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.26 in 72 h, χ2 = 68.5, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.15 in 144 h, χ2 = 31.7, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.29 in 240 h. According to evaluation of Cramer’s V, the magnitude of the relationship between sex and age group was very low in 6, 12, 24, 48 and 144 h and low in 72 and 240 h. That was, the men-to-women ratio differed among age groups, where a higher ratio was observed in the older age groups, and this relationship varied by distance.
Table 4

The number of women (W) and men (M) for each age group and race duration

Age group

6 h

12 h

24 h

48 h

72 h

144 h

240 h

Total

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

W

M

W + M

596

2042

2638

429

1163

1592

447

1764

2211

16

64

80

0

6

6

21

74

95

   

1509

5022

6622

<15

8

19

27

17

30

47

31

59

90

0

4

4

1

3

4

0

3

3

   

57

118

175

15–19

20

73

93

37

99

136

25

81

106

2

4

6

0

1

1

0

2

2

   

84

260

344

20–24

71

261

332

124

312

436

85

404

489

14

58

72

0

4

4

2

45

47

0

6

6

296

1090

1386

25–29

222

627

849

306

735

1041

259

940

1199

64

155

219

5

11

16

49

114

163

17

20

37

922

2602

3524

30–34

399

1273

1672

516

1353

1869

477

1965

2442

100

343

443

5

20

25

74

223

297

27

32

59

1598

5209

6807

35–39

630

2212

2842

659

2135

2794

862

3535

4397

174

498

672

13

25

38

108

325

433

28

43

71

2474

8773

1,1247

40–44

853

3171

4024

948

2901

3849

1342

5073

6415

221

651

872

7

45

52

147

405

552

31

28

59

3549

12,274

15,823

45–49

915

3420

4335

972

2971

3943

1369

5507

6876

265

696

961

24

51

75

149

401

550

16

34

50

3710

13,080

16,790

50–54

617

2916

3533

719

2369

3088

947

4345

5292

168

597

765

18

80

98

78

400

478

3

29

32

2550

10,736

13,286

55–59

331

1755

2086

383

1615

1998

576

2655

3231

91

429

520

13

67

80

46

240

286

2

14

16

1442

6775

8217

60–64

157

1031

1188

176

925

1101

276

1543

1819

56

245

301

10

56

66

25

162

187

10

17

27

710

3979

4689

65–69

56

518

574

101

528

629

108

853

961

31

138

169

2

36

38

21

86

107

9

5

14

328

2164

2492

70–74

11

184

195

35

268

303

69

465

534

6

78

84

0

31

31

8

64

72

2

3

5

131

1093

1224

75–79

5

50

55

14

96

110

24

107

131

1

28

29

0

11

11

1

18

19

   

45

310

355

80–84

0

6

6

2

26

28

3

32

35

0

13

13

0

2

2

0

8

8

   

5

87

92

85–89

   

1

7

8

1

14

15

0

2

2

         

2

23

25

90–94

   

0

2

2

4

4

8

0

1

1

         

4

7

11

Total

4891

19,558

24,449

5439

17,535

22,974

6905

29,346

36,251

1209

4004

5213

98

449

547

729

2570

3299

145

231

376

19,416

73,693

93,109

Fig. 5

The men-to-women ratio across age groups for all race durations. Data are presented for age groups with a minimum of ten runners per sex group

Discussion

This study intended to examine the sex difference for ultra-marathons held from 6 h to 10 days with the hypothesis that women would reduce the gap to men in the last decades. The most important findings were that (1) men were faster than women for all race durations, (2) the sex gap for all race durations increased with increasing age and (3) the gap between women and men decreased in 6, 72, 144 and 240 h, but increased in 24 and 48 h between 1975 and 2013.

Women were not able to narrow the gap to men with increasing race duration

A first important finding was that men were faster than women. The differences between women and men were between 0.2 and 10.0 % for all durations for calendar year 2007 (Table 2). However, these differences were lower than the general sex difference of 11–12 % reported for endurance and ultra-endurance performance (Cheuvront et al. 2005; Coast et al. 2004; Lepers and Cattagni 2012).

An approach of supporting the assumption of women outrunning men was reported by Speechly et al. (1996) comparing performances of both sexes in 90 km events, while matching marathon times of female and male runners. They found that women performed better than men in a 90 km event. Addressing the assumption of Speechly et al. (1996), Hoffman (2008) matched both sexes for running times in 50, 80 and 161 km in the same year and found no difference in running speed. It is important to mention that the runners investigated by Speechly et al. (1996) and Hoffman (2008) were matched for the running speed in shorter races. Therefore, the conclusion that women were as fast as men in ultra-marathon running is only partly true as no women exist who can be matched with the fastest men in the shorter running distances.

Sex differences in running performance have been shown to vary by race’s distance. For instance, Cheuvront et al. (2005) reported a sex difference of 8–14 % for running distances from 1500 m to 42 km, Lepers and Cattagni (2012) a sex difference of ~11 % in the ‘New York City Marathon’ from 1980 to 2009 and Coast et al. (2004) a sex difference of ~12.4 % in running distances from 100 m to 200 km. Across all these distances the sex difference in performance seemed rather to increase than to decrease with increasing race distance. The 240 h races belong to the longest races held worldwide (www.ultra-marathon.org) and therefore serve well for the statement that women will not outrun men in ultra-running distances.

The most important differences between women and men regarding running performance are differences in physiology and anthropometry. Women have more body fat than men in both elite (Vernillo et al. 2013) and recreational (Hoffman et al. 2010a, b) athletes. In elite runners both sexes are considerably leaner than recreational runners (Hetland et al. 1999). In both elite and recreational runners the percentage of body fat is higher in women compared to men (Blaak 2001). It could be argued that fatty tissue may be used as an energy reserve and this could be an advantage for ultra-distances since runners tend to lose body fat during multi-hours running competitions (Karstoft et al. 2013; Schütz et al. 2013). Women might benefit from their higher percentage of body fat since both sexes lose a similar amount of fat during an ultra-endurance performance such as a 100 km ultra-marathon (Knechtle et al. 2010a, b, 2012a, b). Another sex difference in anthropometry is the percentage of skeletal muscle mass (Holden 2004). In ultra-marathoners, both sexes have a lower body fat percentage and the percentage of skeletal muscle tissue is higher (Knechtle et al. 2010a, b, 2012a, b) than in recreational runners. However, body fat and training characteristics, not skeletal muscle mass, were associated with running times in half-marathoners, marathoners, and ultra-marathoners (Knechtle et al. 2012a, b).

Considering physiological aspects, maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) was considered as the most significant predictor of athletic performance (Bassett and Howley 2000). While elite male athletes reach a VO2max of ~85 ml min−1 kg−1 (Saltin and Astrand 1967), VO2max is lower in elite women with a maximum of ~70 ml min−1 kg−1 (Ridout et al. 2010). VO2max is mainly dependent from the heart’s performance and the lung capacity (Steding et al. 2010). The maximal cardiac output (Fomin et al. 2012) and the maximal lung capacity (Guenette et al. 2007) are higher in elite male compared to elite female athletes. VO2max depends directly from both maximal cardiac output and lung capacity and is therefore larger in men than in women (Steding et al. 2010).

Another important aspect for running performance is running economy (Anderson 1996; Piacentini et al. 2013). Running economy is defined as the necessary effort to transport 1 kg of weight for 1 m (Morgan et al. 1989). Although there is a significant difference in running economy between elite and recreational runners, sexes show no difference (Morgan et al. 1989). Bassett and Howley (2000) found VO2max, body fat and running economy as the major three factors contributing and predicting running performance. Therefore, women are disadvantaged in two out of three factors and have no chance to outrun men.

The sex gap for all race durations increased with increasing age

A second important finding was that the sex differences in performance were larger in the older runners. This discrepancy among age groups should be attributed to the men-to-women ratio in each age group. This ratio increased consistently with increasing age for most of the race durations, i.e. a relatively lower number of women participated in the older age groups compared to men. An increase in sex difference in age group athletes has already been reported for athletes competing in shorter race distances. For age group pool swimmers and marathon runners, the sex difference increased with age. However, the increase in sex difference was lower in running compared to swimming (Senefeld et al. 2016). The increase in sex difference in these ultra-marathoners was due to the lower number of women in older age groups. This finding has already been reported for runners in short distances. For marathoners, the increase in sex difference with increasing age was explained by the lower number of women compared to men (Hunter and Stevens 2013).

The gap between women and men across calendar years

A third important finding was that the gap between the sexes decreased for certain ultra-marathons (i.e. 6, 72, 144 and 240 h) across years but increased for others (i.e. 24 and 48 h). Findings for a decrease in sex difference were reported over a large variety of distances as in 100 m sprints (Tatem et al. 2004), marathons (Whipp and Ward 1992) and ultra-marathons (Da Fonseca-Engelhardt et al. 2013; Eichenberger et al. 2012). Promoters of the theory that women would outrun men favoured linear models in performance to support their theory (Tatem et al. 2004; Whipp and Ward 1992). The use of linear models was, however, controversially discussed (Reinboud 2004) but mainly found to be worse than non-linear models.

A potential explanation for the increase in sex difference could be the participation in ultra-marathons. Several studies reported an increase in the percentage of female ultra-marathoners (Da Fonseca-Engelhardt et al. 2013; Hoffman et al. 2010a, b; Zingg et al. 2013). The first women officially ran a marathon in 1967 (www.baa.org). Forty-six years ago, the percentage of female overall finishers started to increase at the ‘Boston Marathon’ from less than 1 to 39.5 % (www.baa.org) as well as in other marathons (www.worldmarathonmajors.com). In ultra-marathons such as the ‘Western State 100 Mile Endurance Run’, the percentage of female finishers increased from virtually none in the late 1970s to nearly 20 % since 2004 (Hoffman et al. 2010a, b). Therefore, the density of both elite and recreational female finishers increased. Nevertheless, the density of the world’s fastest runners is still lower in women than in men (Deaner 2013). This leaves a possibility of a further decrease in the sex difference in ultra-running performance in case the number of female finishers will match with the number of male finishers.

The change in sex difference in performance differed between different distances (Bam et al. 1997; Tatem et al. 2004; Whipp and Ward 1992) as well as between elite and recreational runners (Hunter et al. 2011). As short and middle distance races up to 10,000 m have been held longer for both sexes in the Olympic Games, the first Olympic marathon for women was held in 1984 (www.olympic.org). Even later, women started to compete in ultra-marathons (www.ultra-marathon.org; Hoffman et al. 2010a, b). Therefore, the improvement of female performance would be faster in the first years than the improvement in men. While the sex difference in performance stabilized in running distances up to the marathon distance (Hunter et al. 2011), the sex difference in performance still decreased in ultra-marathons (Hoffman et al. 2010a, b).

Strength, weakness, limitations and implications for future research

The strength of the study is the inclusion of all athletes competing in ultra-marathons in duration between 6 h and 10 days. Furthermore, multiple finishes per athlete were included since the aspect of previous experience seems very important in ultra-marathon running (Hoffman and Parise 2015; Knechtle et al. 2009, 2011a, b). To the best of our knowledge, the data set is the most extensive for ultra-running in time-limited ultra-marathons so far. A possible weakness could be that some events from 6 h to 10 days were not recorded in the data base and therefore were not included in the data set. Furthermore, the study is limited since variables such as anthropometric characteristics (Knechtle et al. 2009, 2010a, b, 2011a, b), training data (Hagan et al. 1981), nutrition (Maughan and Shirreffs 2012; Rodriguez et al. 2009), fluid intake (Williams et al. 2012), exercise-associated hyponatremia (Hoffman et al. 2013), physiological parameters (Billat et al. 2001), and environmental conditions (Ely et al. 2007) were not considered. These variables may have had an influence on race outcome. Future studies may investigate the sex difference for all running distances from 60 m to 3100 miles for the world fastest women and men.

Practical applications

Despite these limitations, the findings of the present study would have important practical implications for both researchers and practitioners working with long-distance runners. Since the analysed data were the most extensive ever studied in time-limited ultra-marathons and covered a large period (~40 years), the findings might be used in future studies as reference. Moreover, runners and practitioners working with them (e.g. fitness trainers) should consider the identified sex differences in the present study in order to develop sex-tailored training programs.

Conclusions

In time-limited races held during the 1975–2013 period, men were faster than women for all race durations, the sex gap for all race durations increased with increasing age and the sex gap decreased in 6, 72, 144 and 240 h, but increased in 24 and 48 h. Female ultra-marathoners seemed to be able to narrow the gap to men in some ultra-marathon race durations in the last 40 years. The men-to-women ratio differed among age groups, where a higher ratio was observed in the older age groups, and this relationship varied by distance.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

BK and MZ collected all data, BK, MZ and PN drafted the manuscript, FV and PN performed the statistical analyses, MZ, CR and TR participated in the design and coordination and helped drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Gesundheitszentrum St. Gallen
(2)
Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich
(3)
Department of Physical and Cultural Education, Hellenic Army Academy

References

  1. Anderson T (1996) Biomechanics and running economy. Sports Med 22:76–89View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bam J, Noakes TD, Juritz J, Dennis SC (1997) Could women outrun men in ultramarathon races? Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:244–247View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassett DR Jr, Howley ET (2000) Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:70–84View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP (2001) Physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:2089–2097View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaak E (2001) Gender differences in fat metabolism. Cur Opin Clin Nutr Metabol Care 4:499–502View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman A, Cramer D (2011) Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19—a guide for social scientists east sussex. Routdedge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheuvront SN, Carter Iii R, Deruisseau KC, Moffatt RJ (2005) Running performance differences between men and women: an update. Sports Med 35:1017–1024View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Coast JR, Blevins JS, Wilson BA (2004) Do gender differences in running performance disappear with distance? Can J Appl Physiol 29:139–145View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Da Fonseca-Engelhardt K, Knechtle B, Rüst CA, Knechtle P, Lepers R, Rosemann T (2013) Participation and performance trends in ultra-endurance running races under extreme conditions—’Spartathlon’ versus ‘Badwater’. Extrem Physiol Med 2:1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Deaner RO (2013) Distance running as an ideal domain for showing a sex difference in competitiveness. Arch Sex Behav 42:413–428View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Eichenberger E, Knechtle B, Rüst CA, Rosemann T, Lepers R (2012) Age and sex interactions in mountain ultramarathon running—the Swiss Alpine Marathon. Open Access J Sports Med 3:73–80Google Scholar
  12. Ely MR, Cheuvront SN, Roberts WO, Montain SJ (2007) Impact of weather on marathon-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:487–493View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Fomin Å, Ahlstrand M, Schill HG, Lund LH, Ståhlberg M, Manouras A, Gabrielsen A (2012) Sex differences in response to maximal exercise stress test in trained adolescents. BMC Pediatr 12:127View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Guenette JA, Witt JD, McKenzie DC, Road JD, Sheel AW (2007) Respiratory mechanics during exercise in endurance-trained men and women. J Physiol 581:1309–1322View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagan RD, Smith MG, Gettman LR (1981) Marathon performance in relation to maximal aerobic power and training indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc 13:185–189View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Hetland ML, Haarbo J, Christiansen C (1999) Regional body composition determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry relation to training, sex hormones, and serum lipids in male long-distance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:102–108View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffman MD (2008) Ultramarathon trail running comparison of performance-matched men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40:1681–1686View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman MD, Parise CA (2015) Longitudinal assessment of the effect of age and experience on performance in 161-km ultramarathons. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10:93–98View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffman MD, Lebus DK, Ganong AC, Casazza GA, Loan MV (2010a) Body composition of 161-km ultramarathoners. Int J Sports Med 31:106–109View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffman MD, Ong JC, Wang G (2010b) Historical analysis of participation in 161 km ultramarathons in North America. Int J Hist Sport 27:1877–1891View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffman MD, Fogard K, Winger J, Hew-Butler T, Stuempfle KJ (2013) Characteristics of 161-km ultramarathon finishers developing exercise-associated hyponatremia. Res Sports Med 21:164–175Google Scholar
  22. Holden C (2004) An everlasting gender gap? Science 305:639–640View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunter SK, Stevens AA (2013) Sex differences in marathon running with advanced age: physiology or participation? Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:148–156View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter SK, Stevens AA, Magennis K, Skelton KW, Fauth M (2011) Is there a sex difference in the age of elite marathon runners? Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:656–664View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Karstoft K, Solomon TP, Laye MJ, Pedersen BK (2013) Daily marathon running for a week-the biochemical and body compositional effects of participation. J Strength Cond Res 27:2927–2933View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Knechtle B, Duff B, Schulze I, Kohler G (2008) The effects of running 1,200 km within 17 days on body composition in a female ultrarunner—Deutschlandlauf 2007. Res Sports Med 16:167–188View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Knechtle B, Wirth A, Knechtle P, Zimmermann K, Kohler G (2009) Personal best marathon performance is associated with performance in a 24-h run and not anthropometry or training volume. Br J Sports Med 43:836–839View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Knechtle B, Rosemann T, Knechtle P, Lepers R (2010a) Predictor variables for a 100-km race time in male ultra-marathoners. Percept Motor Skills 111:681–693View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Knechtle B, Senn O, Imoberdorf R, Joleska I, Wirth A, Knechtle P, Rosemann T (2010b) Maintained total body water content and serum sodium concentrations despite body mass loss in female ultra-runners drinking ad libitum during a 100 km race. Asia Pacif J Clin Nutr 19:83–90Google Scholar
  30. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rosemann T, Lepers R (2011a) Personal best marathon time and longest training run, not anthropometry, predict performance in recreational 24-hour ultrarunners. J Strength Cond Res 25:2212–2218View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Rosemann T, Senn O (2011b) What is associated with race performance in male 100-km ultra-marathoners anthropometry, training or marathon best time? J Sports Sci 29:571–577View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Knechtle B, Knechtle P, Wirth A, Rüst CA, Rosemann T (2012a) A faster running speed is associated with a greater body weight loss in 100-km ultra-marathoners. J Sports Sci 30:1131–1140View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Knechtle B, Rüst CA, Knechtle P, Rosemann T (2012b) Does muscle mass affect running times in male long-distance master runners? Asian J Sports Med 3:247–256View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Lepers R, Cattagni T (2012) Do older athletes reach limits in their performance during marathon running? Age 34:773–781View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Lepers R, Knechtle B, Stapley PJ (2013) Trends in triathlon performance: effects of sex and age. Sports Med 43:851–863View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Maughan RJ, Shirreffs SM (2012) Nutrition for sports performance: issues and opportunities. Proc Nutr Soc 71:112–119View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS (1989) Factors affecting running economy. Sports Med 7:310–330View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Parnell RW (1954) The relationship of masculine and feminine physical traits to academic and athletic performance. Br J Med Psychol 27:247–251View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Pate RR, Kriska A (1984) Physiological basis of the sex difference in cardiorespiratory endurance sports medicine. Int J Appl Med Sci Sport Exerc 1:87–89Google Scholar
  40. Piacentini MF, De Ioannon G, Comotto S, Spedicato A, Vernillo G, La Torre A (2013) Concurrent strength and endurance training effects on running economy in master endurance runners. J Strength Cond Res 27:2295–2303View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinboud W (2004) Linear models can’t keep up with sport gender gap. Nature 432:147View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Ridout SJ, Parker BA, Smithmyer SL, Gonzales JU, Beck KC, Proctor DN (2010) Age and sex influence the balance between maximal cardiac output and peripheral vascular reserve. J Appl Physiol 108:483–489View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodriguez NR, Di Marco NM, Langley S (2009) American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:709–731View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Saltin B, Astrand PO (1967) Maximal oxygen uptake in athletes. J Appl Physiol 23:353–358Google Scholar
  45. Schütz UHW, Billich C, König K, Würslin C, Wiedelbach H, Brambs HJ, Machann J (2013) Characteristics, changes and influence of body composition during a 4486 km transcontinental ultramarathon: results from the Transeurope Footrace mobile whole body MRI-project. BMC Med 11:1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Senefeld J, Joyner MJ, Stevens A, Hunter SK (2016) Sex differences in elite swimming with advanced age are less than marathon running. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26:17–28View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Speechly DP, Taylor SR, Rogers GG (1996) Differences in ultra-endurance exercise in performance-matched male and female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:359–365Google Scholar
  48. Steding K, Engblom H, Buhre T, Carlsson M, Mosén H, Wohlfart B, Arheden H (2010) Relation between cardiac dimensions and peak oxygen uptake. J Cardiovasc Magnet Reson 12:1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Tatem AJ, Guerra CA, Atkinson PM, Hay SI (2004) Momentous sprint at the 2156 Olympics? Nature 431:525View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Vernillo G, Schena F, Berardelli C, Rosa G, Galvani C, Maggioni M, La Torre A (2013) Anthropometric characteristics of top-class Kenyan marathon runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 53:403–408Google Scholar
  51. Whipp BJ, Ward SA (1992) Will women soon outrun men? Nature 355:25View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams J, Tzortziou-Brown V, Malliaras P, Perry M, Kipps C (2012) Hydration strategies of runners in the London marathon. Clin J Sport Med 22:152–156View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Zingg MA, Knechtle B, Rüst CA, Rosemann T, Lepers R (2013) Analysis of participation and performance in athletes by age group in ultramarathons of more than 200 km in length. Int J Gen Med 6:209–220Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016