psychologic characterization of the elite distance … · a preliminary study of the personality...

PSYCHOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ELITE DISTANCE RUNNER

William P. Morgan

Department of Physical Education and Dance University of Wisconsin-Madison

Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Michael L. Pollock

Institute for Aerobics Research Dallas, Texas 75230

The stress imposed during marathon competition is arduous, to say the least, and marathoners have previously been observed to possess unique anatomical and physiological characteristics. The unique biological nature of the marathoner is further outlined throughout this present volume. However, it has been noted by Costill 1 that “. . . many athletes appear to meet the anatomical and physiological prerequisites for the marathon, while only a select group of men achieve success in this demanding sport.” A preliminary study of the personality characteristics of marathoners reported earlier by Morgan and Costill * suggested that athletes from this particular subgroup display unique psychological profiles. For example, these marathoners were characterized by introversion, stability, and low anxiety levels. However, none of these variables were found to corre- late significantly with marathon performance, and this lack of statistical signifi- cance was undoubtedly due in part to the homogeneity of the sample (nine males). As a matter of fact, aerobic power was not found to be correlated with performance either, and this also was related to the “problem” of homogeneity, since Costill et al.3 subsequently demonstrated that aerobic power and endurance performance are significantly correlated in heterogeneous groups.

The study by Morgan and Costill should be replicated for several reasons. First of all, while the marathoners reported on were introverted, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, one member of the group who had previously won the Boston Marathon, scored very high on the extroversion measure. His extroversion score, as well as his overall psychological profile, was more like that of the world class wrestlers previously described by M ~ r g a n . ~ In other words, it would seem imperative that additional data be generated prior to making an attempt at presenting a psychological stereotype intended to characterize marathoners. It should be noted, however, that an extensive body of literature exists in the field of sport psychology suggesting that individual sport athletes (e.g., runners) are more introverted than team sport athletes, and also, noncontact athletes (e.g., runners) have typically been observed to be more introverted than contact athletes.5 Hence, the earlier findings of Morgan and Costill do fit with theoretical expectations to a certain degree. A second reason why their earlier findings should be viewed with caution, however, is that personality structure in sport may well differ as a function of ability level. Indeed, the recent work of Johnson and Morgan 6 involving successful and unsuccessful college athletes tested during the first week of their college careers reveals that

382

Morgan & Pollock: Psychological Characterization 383

athletic ability is correlated with personality structure. Therefore, the earlier report of Morgan and Costil12 may not apply to samples comprised solely of elite marathoners. The present paper, unlike the earlier one, is concerned primarily with characterization of elite or world class distance runners.

There are a number of reasons why one might intuitively expect factors of a psychological nature to play an important role in long distance running. First, it appears reasonably clear that endurance performance is governed by both the physical cupaciry and willingness of the runner to tolerate the discomfort associated with hard physical work. It appears that substantial differences in both the capacity and willingness to tolerate discomfort exist among marathoners. For example, among finishers of the marathon (26.2 miles or 42.2 km), performance times frequently range from 2 hours 15 minutes to 4 or 5 hours- hence, certainly a considerable difference in capacity, and probably, a fair amount of difference in the willingness to tolerate discomfort. Also, while marathoners perform at approximately 75% of their maximal aerobic power (MAP),7 the actual range is about 64%-90% of Of course, the decision to compete at 85% of one’s MAP as opposed to 65% obviously represents more than willingness alone. Data presented elsewhere in the present volume clearly attests to the physiological basis of such “decision making.” For example, some runners are producing large amounts of lactate at 80% of their MAP whereas others can continue for the full 42.2 km at 85% of their MAP with low lactate levels. Also, the predominant muscle fiber type of the runner is reported elsewhere in this volume to be an important consideration.1” There- fore, the large individual differences widely observed in marathoners have a substantial physiological basis, and the authors in no way intend to suggest otherwise. An attempt will be made in the present paper, however, to examine the extent to which psychological factors can be useful in characterizing the marathoner.

PROCEDURE

The purposes of this investigation were to (1 ) compare the psychological characteristics of world class middle-long distance and marathon runners, (2 ) contrast their psychologic profiles with those of non-world-class runners and athletes from other sports, (3) examine the perceptual processing of “effort sense” information in these runners, and (4) attempt to delineate the factors responsible for involvement in competitive running, as well as adherence across time.

Subjects

The runners who served as subjects in this investigation consisted of a group of world class athletes ( n = 19) and a group of college middle distance runners ( n = 8). The latter runners, while outstanding by college standards, were not of world class caliber. The world class group was further divided into middle- long distance ( n = 11) and marathon ( n = 8) subgroups for comparative purposes. Specific details concerning the criteria for subgroup selection are reported earlier in this volume.ll

384 Annals New York Academy of Sciences

Variables

The dependent variables consisted of ( 1 ) psychometric test scores obtained from standardized psychological inventories, (2) running histories and race strategies obtained by means of a clinical interview, (3) physiological data obtained during submaximal treadmill running, and (4) ratings of perceived exertion obtained during submaximal running. The details relating to these dependent variables are outlined below.

Psychometric Variables

Each runner completed a battery of psychological inventories during the first evening of the study and prior to the detailed physiological testing described elsewhere in this volume.11 The inventories consisted of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) ,12 Somatic Perception Questionnaire (SPQ) , I3 Depression Adjective Checklist (DACL) ,I4 Profile of Mood States (POMS) ,15 Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) ,16 Physical Estimation and Attraction Scale (PEAS),17 and the Hidden Shapes Test (HST) .Ix

This test battery yielded measures of state and trait anxiety,12 perception of somatic activity during “stressful” situations,’:+ depression,14 tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion,15 extraversion, neuroticism, and conformity,16 attraction toward physical activity and estimation of physical ability,17 and field dependence.IR

Running History and Strategy

A taped clinical interview lasting approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour was carried out with each runner individually. This interview consisted of questions relating to the runner’s current training program, occupation, family structure, diet, use of common drugs (e.g., aspirin, alcohol, coffee, and tea), use of tobacco, sleep patterns, and so on. Also, the runner was asked to respond to each of the following questions in 25 words or less: ( 1 ) Explain why you first became involved in competitive running. (2) Explain why you continue to run competitively. The runners were encouraged to respond spontaneously, de- scribing the first impressions or thoughts that came to mind. The first question was concerned with the general issue of involvement (or gravitation), whereas the second was directed toward the matter of adherence-two different but interdependent variables. They were also asked to respond to the following question, but unlike the first two questions there was no limit placed on response length-indeed, the runners were encouraged to elaborate OR this question as much as possible: (3) Describe what you think about during a long distance run or marathon. What sort of thought processes take place as a run progresses? There is no limit on the length of your response. Please talk in detail about this matter.

Evaluation of data from the various objective psychological inventories was carried out in accordance with specified scoring procedures described in each of the test manuals. Interpretation of the taped interviews was considerably less objective, but it was possible to identify major thematic processes, as well as


answer specific questions posed a priori. The following hypotheses were tested in this portion of the study:

(HI ) The motivational forces responsible for initial involvement in running would not be characterized by a single thematic dimension.

(H,) The forces responsible for adherence or continuation in competitive running would be both extrinsic and intrinsic.

(H,) Dissociation of sensory input would represent the principal “cognitive strategy” employed by these world class distance runners during competition.

Physiological and Perceptual Variables

Maximal and submaximal exercise tests were carried out on each runner as described elsewhere in this volume.1Y Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were obtained during submaximal exercise in an attempt to characterize the manner in which these runners processed sensory information relating to physical effort (“effort sense”). The RPE values were obtained using the psycho- physical category scale developed by Borg,*O and the ratings were made during a submaximal test in which the subjects ran at 10 mph (4.5 m/sec) 7 minutes, and 12 mph (5.5 m/sec) for an additional 4 minutes on a motor driven treadmill. The grade was maintained at 0% throughout the run.

The RPE scale ranges from 6 to 20, and the odd numbered categories have verbal anchors (7 = very, very light; 9 = very light; 11 = fairly light; 13 = somewhat hard; 15 = hard, 17 = very hard; and 19 = very, very hard). While the perceptual ratings were being obtained, physiological data were simultane- ously acquired. This permitted a comparison of factors such as heart rate, oxygen consumption, ventilatory minute volume, and lactate accumulation in the three groups of runners. More importantly, it was thus possible to study the juxtaposition of perceptual ratings and physiologic responsivity. The physiological data are reported on in detail earlier in this volume.1Q

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Psychometric Data

The means, standard deviations, and standard errors for all of the psychological variables appear in TABLE 1 for the total group ( n = 27). Also, a one-way ANOVA was performed on these data for the three separate groups, and the means and F ratios resulting from these analyses appear in TABLE 2.

This analysis revealed that the world class middle-long distance runners and marathon runners did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) on any of the 16 variables, nor did these groups differ from the college runners. Indeed, inspection of the mean data reveals a remarkable similarity for the three groups. Therefore, the three groups were combined for purposes of drawing comparisons with other athlete groups, as well as with published norms for college students.

A comparison of the runners in the present study with previously tested high-level US. wrestlers 21 and rowers,22 appears in FIGURE 1 for data obtained with the POMS.15 Also, the mean for college students ( T score = 50) is repre- sented by the solid line, and the broken lines represent a departure of one standard deviation from the mean. It will be noted that the runners possess


TABLE 1

ON EACH PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLE RAW SCORE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, A N D STANDARD ERRORS FOR ALL RUNNERS

Variable Mean Standard Standard (n=27) Deviation Error

State anxiety Trait anxiety Somatic perception Tension Depression (POMS) Anger Vigor Fatigue Confusion Extraversion Neuroticism Exercise attitude Self esteem Field dependence Depression (DACL) Conformity

33.50 31.68 20.93 10.46 6.82 7.89

21.07 6.89 7.43

13.43 9.43

42.64 26.89 22.75

3.96 3.14

6.89 9.27 5.50 5.57 7.93 6.03 5.60 5.30 4.12 4.65 5.42 4.70 5.15

12.20 2.70 1.82

1.30 1.75 1.04 1.05 1 s o 1.14 1.06 1 .00 0.78 0.88 1.02 0.89 0.97 2.3 1 0.51 0.34

TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF RAW SCORE MEANS FOR WORLD CLASS MIDDLE-LONG DISTANCE

AND MARATHON RUNNERS WITH COLLEGE MIDDLE DISTANCE RUNNERS ON EACH PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLE *

World Class Runners College

Middle-Long Marathon Runners Variable Distance (n = 8) (n=8) F

( n = l l )

State anxiety 33.82 32.75 33.75 0.06 Trait anxiety 34.91 26.63 33.00 2.04 Somatic perception 22.18 19.25 20.38 0.66 Tension 10.91 9.75 10.88 0.1 1 Depression (POMS) 9.18 3.88 6.88 1.01 Anger 8.73 6.75 8.13 0.23 Vigor 19.00 22.75 2 1.25 1.14 Fatigue 6.81 6.38 7.88 0.16 Confusion 8.82 5.63 7.63 1.40 Extraversion 13.27 12.75 14.88 0.44 Neuroticism 10.27 1 1.00 6.50 1.66 Exercise attitude 42.27 41.38 43.63 0.46 Self Esteem 26.46 26.38 28.00 0.24 Field dependence 2 1.27 21.75 25.63 0.30 Depression (DACL) 4.73 4.13 3.13 0.8 1 Conformity 3.73 2.25 3.38 0.46

* Daerences between groups were found not to be significant (p >O.OS).

T scan - so+ 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70- 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60- 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 61 50- 49 48 47 46 46 44 43 42 41 40- 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 -

Morgan & Pollock: Psychological Characterization

FACTOR

387

T scam

80+ 79 18 77 76 75 74 73 1 2 71 - -70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61

’ -60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51

-50 49 48 41 46 45 44 43 42 41 . -40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30

FIGURE 1 . The “iceberg” profile identified for world class athletes. Actual raw score units for tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion as measured by the Profile of Mood States appear in the boxes and circles.


psychological profiles that are quite similar to high-level athletes in wrestling and crew. However, all three groups score appreciably below the population mean for tension, depression, fatigue, and confusion, and above the mean for vigor. These differences favor the athlete samples in every instance, and the observed group profiles for the athletes can be regarded as positive from a mental health standpoint. The senior author has previously described the observed psychometric configuration as the “iceberg” profile. In other words,

50

45

40 v)

2 35 3 w

t

a 30

8

g 20

25

3

15

10

5 -

c

- - - - - - - - -

COLLEGE NORMS

OARSMEN

A-A WRESTLERS

D-• RUNNERS

* * * I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I

Sa Ta Sp To De An Vi Fa Co Ex Ne ti

PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES AND TRAITS

FIGURE 2. Comparison of selected world class athlete groups with college norms for the complete psychological test battery. The variables in abbreviated form are: state anxiety (SA), trait anxiety (TA), somatic perception (SP), tension (Te), depression (De), anger (An), vigor (Vi), fatigue (Fa), confusion (Co), extroversion (Ex), neuroticism (Ne), and conformity (Li).

high-level athletes score below the mean (surface) on the negative psychological constructs contained in the POMS, but above the mean (surface) for the one positively anchored construct (vigor). The actual raw scores for all of the variables appear in FIGURE 2 for the runners tested in the present study and the previously tested wrestlers and oarsmen, as well as means based on published norms. Variables Te through Co in this figure constitute data obtained from the POMS,15 and it will be noted that five of the six significant differences

Morgan & Pollock: Psychological Characterization 3 89

(denoted with asterisks) were accounted for with this scale. Also, the only trait variable on which differences existed between the athlete samples and the college norms was that of trait anxiety in which the athletes were found to score significantly lower ( p < 0.05). It should also be noted, and emphasized, that these athlete samples were not more extroverted (variable Ex) or stable (variable N e ) than the college norms, which contradicts a substantial portion of earlier research in the field of sport psychology.; Also, the earlier finding* that marathoners are more introverted than world class wrestlers was not supported in the present comparison. Further, the marathoners were not more introverted than the general population as reported earlier.‘ However, the finding that runners are significantly less anxious and depressed than the general population was in agreement with the earlier report of Morgan and Costill.’ Whether these consistently observed positive differences in aflect (or mood) represent the result of years of training, or whether long distance runners differ from the outset on these selected behavioral manifestations remains to be demonstrated with longitudinal research. In the meantime, however, since the runners and other athletes possess extroversion and neuroticism scores (trait measures) similar to the college norms, it seems quite likely that low anxiety and depression scores (state measures) in runners represent a consequence of involvement in distance running rather than reflecting an antecedent condition.

The observation that these runners, and athletes from other subgroups as well, scored lower than the college norms on tension (POMS) but not on state anxiety (STAI) warrants comment since these variables are presumably tapping the S ~ I I I P psychological construct. At first glance this appears to be contradictory. However, the “instructional sets” for these two inventories differ in that the respondent is advised to reply in terms of how he or she feels nt this monwnt when completing the STAI whereas the “set” used with the POMS l5 requests the subject to reply in terms of “how you have been feeling during the past week including today.” Since the tension scale of the POMS and the state anxiety scale of the STAI are highly correlated, it is fair to assume that a lack of complete concordance in ow findings was due to elevated state anxiety in these runners at the time of testing, which was due to the test situation per SP.

This view is supported by the finding that these runners scored significantly lower than the college norms on trait anxiety as measured by the STAI.l2 Trait anxiety, however, would not be expected to change in a stressful situation since it represents an enduring as opposed to transient (state) variable. Methodologi- cal factors such as those cited above are often useful in explaining the many “controversial” or “contradictory” findings that have been found in the field of sport psychology.

The purpose of the interview data was to ( 1 ) test the three hypotheses cited earlier and (2) describe the health behavior of these elite runners. The first hypothesis was confiruied in that no single underlying factor or force was responsible for initial involvement in distance running. However, it is noteworthy that none of the runners initially became involved because of the nature of running or its intrinsic appeal. A variety of reasons were given such as (1) peer influence, (2) parental influence, (3) inability to take part in other sports because of body size, (4 ) i~ means of getting in shape for another sport such as


basketball, and ( 5 ) early success in running races held during grade school or junior high school physical education classes.

The second hypothesis was also confirmed in that adherence or continuation in competitive running was found to be related to both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. The extrinsic rewards related to positive reinforcement resulting from the winning of awards, ability to travel extensively throughout the world, and so on. The intrinsic rewards centered around the sheer joy of running and the sense of well-being resulting from training and competing, Each runner reported that he would continue running for the remainder of his life regardless of whether or not it was possible to continue competing. Hence, the vocational nature of the runner’s life style clearly possesses an avocational dimension.

The third hypothesis was rejected, and this represents a major finding in our view. Dissociation of sensory input did not represent the principal “cognitive strategy,” but rather, these elite marathon runners were found to utilize an associative strategy. These runners reported that (1 ) they paid very close attention to bodily input such as feelings and sensations arising in their feet, calves, and thighs, as well as their respiration; (2) whereas they paid attention to time (“the clock”), pace was largely governed by “reading their bodies”; (3) they identified certain runners they would like to stay with during a given run if possible, but they did not typically employ a “leeching” strategy; (4) during any given marathon they constantly reminded or told themselves to “relax,” “stay loose,” and so forth; and ( 5 ) they typically did not encounter “pain zones” during the marathon, and most of these elite runners dismissed the phenomenon referred to as “the wall” as simply a myth-that is, they did not “come up against the wall” during the marathon run.

Prior work conducted by the senior author 23 revealed that marathon runners characteristically attempt to “dissociate” sensory input during competition. Previous interviews with 20 marathoners, as well as more recent interview data from long distance runners, revealed that these athletes are “cognitively active” during competition, but this cognitive activity seldom, if ever, relates to the actual running. Also, this general finding has since been observed for long distance swimmers and cyclists as well. The cognitive strategy employed by these athletes can best be regarded as “dissociative cognitive rehearsal.” Many runners reconstruct images of past events throughout the 42.2 km run. For example, one of the first marathoners interviewed by the senior author routinely rehearsed or reconstructed his entire educational experience during each marathon. During the run he would age regress himself to first grade and attempt to recall as much as possible about the experience (e.g., the teacher’s name and face, the names and faces of other boys and girls in the class, various experiences such as learning to read, print, work with crayons, and paste, playing an instru- ment in the rhythm band, recess, and so on). After a while he would proceed to second grade, recall salient “chunks” of information, and then proceed to third grade. This continued throughout grade school, high school, college, his oral defense, receipt of the Ph.D., as well as his current postdoctoral experiences. This marathoner always reconstructed his educational experience during the marathon; it was always somewhat unique, however, in that he would remember different people, events, and activities each time. In other words, the theme was always the same, but the content varied. Other runners have described remarkably similar approaches, and it would be redundant to proceed with a review of these case Suffice it to say that another runner always builds a house when he marathons; another writes letters to everyone he owes a


letter to; another listens to a stack of Beethoven records; another participates in extremely complex mathematical exercises; another steps on the imaginary faces of two co-workers she detests throughout thc marathon; another repeat- edly sings the Star Spangled Banner in crescendo fashion; another age regresses and becomes a steam locomotive at the base of heartbreak hill; and so on. The various rehearsal themes are rather different, but they all seem to be directed toward the same end-dissociating the painful sensory input. As a matter of fact, most of these runners have reported that use of these techniques helps them negotiate various pain zones and particularly the proverbial (or mythical?) wall.

It is of intcrest that anthropological reports of Tibetan monks trained in the art of Itrng-gom (swiftness of foot) suggest that a similar form of dissociation may have been used in making possible their alleged, extraordinary runs. For example, it has been reported by Watson that one monk covered more than 300 miles in 30 hours. In other words, he averaged over 10 mph over uneven terrain in a hostile environment (altitude and cold). This performance would equal eleven and a half consecutive marathons at 2:37, or three 100 mile runs of 10 hours each. Such a performance would compare rather favorably with our best marathoners of today running a 12 mph pace at sea level; with mod- erate temperature ranges; on even road surfaces; and with the best shoes money can buy! The “cognitive strategy” allegedly used by these specially trained monks consisted of the following: While running the monk repeated to himself a secret or sacred phrase (mantra). His respiration was kept in rhythm with the phrase, and his locomotion was put in synchrony with both his respiration and the phrase. The runner fixed his eyes on a distant object, and did not look from side to side, nor did he speak.’\

In many respects the technique described above is almost identical with the procedure utilized by two marathoners interviewed earlier. Further, portions of the above procedure were used by all of the marathoners in the earlier case studies.

Unfortunately, the validity of such anthropological reports is always open to question. Therefore, the efficacy of such a procedure was recently evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions by Morgan et They employed a procedure very similar to that explained earlier for the Mahetang monks with the exception that a “pseudo-mantra,’’ the word down, was substituted for the sacred phrase. Using a single-blind, placebo design they found that a simple dissociation strategy of the type described for the Mahetangs resulted in performance gains that averaged 30% over base-line in contrast with both control and placebo treatments. Their subjects were young adult males, and the endurance task consisted of walking to complete exhaustion at 80% of Yo, m:tx. The enhanced performance, however, was not associated with cardiovascular, metabolic, or endocrine changes. Hence, the gain in performance took place as a result of the subjects willingness to endure or cope with the distress and pain of continued effort.

It has been known for sometime, of course, that endurance performance can be facilitated by means of hypnosis under a variety of condition~.~4 For example, running performance in the 10,000 meters race, bicycle ergometer sprint speed, shoulder and upper arm endurance, and hand endurance have all been facilitated by means of hypnotic sugge~ t ion .~~ It has also been demonstrated more recently that perception of effort during standardized bicycle ergometry can be manipulated hypnotically,2s~ 26 and exercise heart rate can be


increased, as well as decreased during constant work by means of instrumental conditioning using biofeedback technique~.~T Therefore, it would seem that either through formal (hypnosis or biofeedback) or informal procedures it would be possible for marathoners to facilitate their performances. Hence, it is not surprising that all of the runners interviewed in our earlier case studies employed various self-taught techniques that can best be viewed as dissociative.

The world class marathoners in the present study, however, did not employ such strategies. Indeed, rather than dissociate, these runners characteristically reported a strategy that we feel can best be viewed as associative in nature-not dissociative. However, it now becomes clear in retrospect that we were dealing with two rather distinct samples from the marathon community. Our first group consisted of average runners who completed the marathon in times ranging from 3 to 4 hours, whereas the present world class group consisted of several runners who had performfd below 2: 15 and all of them had performed under 2:20.

Additional questions asked during the interview dealt with health-related items such as usage of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and aspirin; training frequency and duration; reasons for running (not competing) ; birth order; sleep patterns; and perception of training intensity. A summary of these data are presented below for the elite marathon group.

All of the elite marathoners trained seven days per week, they averaged 100.7 miles per week, and they devoted about 2% hours daily to training. Also, these runners reported a mean value of 13.6 for training intensity according to the Borg Scale.

The primary reason advanced for running on a regular basis was that it made them “feel good.” However, two runners responded that their training was a means to an end, with the end being competition. In other words, these two marathon runners, unlike the other six, did not regard running as an end in itself. On the other hand, both runners reported they would continue running for the remainder of their lives even if they were not able to compete. It is conceivable that these two runners may not have been consciously aware of the primary motivational forces responsible for their involvement in running.

There exists a rather substantial literature dealing with the relationship of ordinal position among siblings and success in various activities. Of the runners in this study, four were firstborn, three mid-born, and one last-born. Unfortu- nately, the sample size was too small to make meaningful comparisons on this variable, but a ratio of 4:l for first to last born suggests that ordinal position may be worthy of further study in connection with characterization of distance runners.

Six of the eight marathoners had experimented with the smoking of cigarettes, and the mean age for this initial experimentation was 11 years (range: 10-1 2). However, only one of the runners ever smoked five or more cigarettes on a regular basis and this occurred at the age of 13 years for a brief period in the life of this particular runner. Hence, it is possible to conclude that not only were none of these runners smokers, but for all practical purposes, they had never smoked.

Consumption of alcoholic beverages was considered from the standpoint of the number of (1) 12-ounce bottles of beer, (2) 6-ounce glasses of wine, or (3) one l-ounce shots of liquor consumed per week. Six of the marathon runners did not consume liquor, one consumed an average of one ounce per week, and the last reported a weekly consumption of 18 ounces. Four of the runners did not consume wine, and the remaining four averaged three glasses


per week with a range of 1-5. Only one of the runners abstained completely from beer, and the consumption in the remaining seven averaged 9.7 bottles per week. However, the range was 1-30 bottles per week and the mean of 9.7 is skewed as a result of two runners who reported consuming 24 and 30 bottles per week, respectively. It is of some interest that the runner who reported having 24 bottles per week also consumed the largest amount of liquor per week ( 18 ounces).

Four of the eight marathon runners did not consume coffee, and the remaining four averaged three cups per day (range: 1-5). Also, four of the runners did not consume tea, and the remaining four averaged 4% cups per day. HOW- ever, this latter mean is skewed due to one runner who reported a daily consumption of 12 cups.

None of the eight marathoners consumed aspirin, and tension reduction through exercise might be offered as one of the reasons for this observation. Also, these runners averaged 7% hours of sleep per night with a range of 6 to 9 hours.

These findings suggest that elite marathon runners are quite homogeneous with respect to (1) the frequency, duration, and intensity of training; (2) the reasons for involvement in running; (3) amount of daily sleep; (4) aspirin utilization; and ( 5 ) smoking behavior. However, there is a tendency for elite marathoners to be firstborn, and they are extremely heterogeneous with respect to consumption of coffee, tea, and alcohol.

I t should also be noted that all of the eight marathoners participated in track and/or cross country during high school. Three of the eight also received varsity letters in basketball during high school, one in cross country skiing, and one in swimming. It is noteworthy that none of these runners had received varsity letters in contact sports such as wrestling or football. Further, all of these athletes went on to earn varsity letters in track and cross country at the college level, but none of them lettered in additional sports as they had in high school. It should be recalled that one of the major reasons why some of the runners went out for cross country during their high school years was to get in shape for another sport such as basketball.

Physiological and Perceptual Data

Physiological data has been reported in detail for the same runners elsewhere in the present volume.*o~ l1 The selected data presented here are limited to submaximal exercise responsivity in order to better understand the perception of effort. The means and standard deviations for selected physiological variables appear in TABLE 3. Also, a one-way ANOVA was performed on each variable, and the resulting F ratio and associated probability are given for each comparison. The Newman-Keuls procedure described by Winer was applied when a significant difference for group means occurred.

It will be noted that the three groups did not differ in body weight, percent body fat, or maximal exercise heart rate. A significant difference in groups was observed for maximal aerobic power, and the Newman-Keuls probe revealed that both world class groups scored significantly higher than the college runners. Also, the middle-long distance runners were significantly higher ( 5 ml/ kg-min) than the marathon group. A significant difference was also observed for submaximal exercise lactate, with the elite groups scoring significantly lower than


TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF SELECTED PHYSIOLOGICAL VARIABLES FOR WORLD CLASS

DISTANCE RUNNERS

World Class Runners

MIDDLE-LONG DISTANCE AND MARATHON RUNNERS AND COLLEGE MIDDLE

Middle- Long Mara- College

Distance thon Runners Variables ( n = l l ) (n=8) (n=8) F 1,

Body weight (kg) 63.10 61.53 66.85 0.63 NS Body Fat (%) 5.79 4.63 6.81 0.85 NS VO,,., (ml/kg.min) 78.77 74.10 68.91 20.41 <0.001 Maximum HR (bpm) 198.73 195.75 ' 195.12 0.63 NS Submaximal exercise lactate

level (mg% ) 30.73 31.00 69.00 18.66 <0.001

the college runners but not differing from each other. This latter finding is understandable since post-hoc analyses revealed the elite groups were running at 84% of maximum while the college group was performing at 95% of maximum during the same submaximal work bout at 12 mph.

The mean perceived exertion ratings for the three groups across the submaximal runs is illustrated in FIGURE 3. It will de noted that the three groups have very similar RPE values during the first two minutes of exercise at 10 mph, and while the elite groups are lower than the college runners at the fourth and sixth minutes, these latter differences are not significant. However, since the elite runners achieved both a perceptual and physiological steady state at 10 mph, and since the college runners had not achieved such states by the sixth minute, it is quite likely that perceptual differences would have emerged with continued running at 10 mph. Once the treadmill speed was increased to 12 mph all groups experienced a significant increase in perception of effort, and at this higher speed the college runners perceived the exercise intensity to be significantly greater than did the elite runners. Also, it will be noted in FIGURE 3 that the elite distance runners tend to enter a perceptual steady state at this speed, and, of course, many members of this group compete at a 12-mph pace.

Mean data for perceived exertion, heart rate, and ventilatory minute volume appear in TABLES 4 and 5 in connection with the runs at 10 mph and 12 mph, respectively. It is clear that the elite runners encountered a significantly (p < 0.001) lower exercise stress at 10 mph when exercise demand is evaluated in terms of heart rate or ventilatory minute volume. However, the fact that the groups did not differ in their perception of effort must be regarded as a major finding in this investigation. In other words, while the runners of lesser ability were exercising at a significantly higher metabolic load, they perceived the cost to be the same. A similar finding was noted in the perceptual responses of candidates for the 1972 U.S. Olympic Freestyle Wrestling Team. While the ten men who eventually made the team were physiologically superior to the thirty who did not, the two groups did not differ in their perception of effort at an absolute work intensity of 750 kpm/min (125 W).23 The consequences


of inaccurately perceiving exercise cost has many readily apparent implications for the competitive situation.

The nature of the physiological differences that existed for the three groups of runners is illustrated in FIGURES 4, 5, and 6. These figures reveal that the elite runners had a significantly lower heart rate and ventilatory minute volume, and they were running at a lower percent of their maximal aerobic power during every minute of exercise at both 10 and 12 mph.

The increase in percent of maximal aerobic power that the runners were forced to work at in going from 10 to 12 mph was essentially the same for all three groups; that is, an increase of about 15% resulted. The mean perceptual ratings, however, differ at 12 mph whereas they did not differ at 10 mph. The RPE values summarized in TABLE 5 reveal that the two elite groups perceived the exercise intensity to be the same, and this agreement is consonant with expectations derived from the measured physiological parameters. The higher RPE values for the less capable runners are also compatible with the physiological observations. A logical question would seem to be why such a difference exists at 12 mph but not 10 mph? One possibility might be that the onset of anaerobisis in the college runners, who were now at 95% of maximum, triggered the perceptual difference. This would appear to be tenable since running at

- 17 - 10 - 15 - 2

14 - K w 5 1 3 -

P

8 1 2 - L w

w 8 11 -

n 10 - 9 -

NS NS .03 e.002

I I I I I

2 4 6 8 10 12

MINUTE OF EXERCISE

FIGURE 3. Ratings of perceived exertion in the elite marathon (0-0) and middle-long distance runners (0-0) and the college middle distance runners (0-0).

TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED EXERTION A N D SELECTED METABOLIC VARIABLES

OF WORLD CLASS MIDDLE-LONG DISTANCE AND MARATHON RUNNERS WITH COLLEGE DISTANCE RUNNERS OBTAINED DURING TREADMILL RUNNING

AT 10 mph (4.4 m/sec) AND 0% GRADE

190

185

180

2 175

A

m, 170

U 165

2 160 I

155

k

World Class Runners

c

- - - - - - - -

Middle- Long College

Distance Marathon Runners Variable (n=ll) ( n = 8 ) ( n = 8 ) F P

~~

At 2 minutes Heart rate (bprn) 157.18 154.50 171.62 8.70 <0.001 Perceived exertion 9.27 8.88 9.50 0.16 NS

Heart rate (bpm) 161.45 154.00 175.00 8.77 <0.001 Perceived exertion 9.45 9.13 10.63 1.57 NS

Heart rate (bprn) 164.27 159.00 178.25 9.44 <0.001 Perceived exertion 10.09 9.50 11.25 1.59 NS P, (Iiter/min) 84.18 84.00 107.12 10.66 <0.001

At 4 minutes

A t 6 minutes

10 MPH 12 MPH -I-

150 t ! < -001 * .001 e.001 < .05 < .05

2 4 6 8 10 12

MINUTE OF EXERCISE

FIGURE 4. Heart rate for the elite marathon (0-0) and middle-long distance runners (0-0) and the college middle distance runners (0-0) during submaximal exercise.


95

90

85

80

75

7 0

65

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED EXERTION AND SELECTED METABOLIC VARIABLES OF WORLD CLASS MIDDLE-LONG DISTANCE AND MARATHON RUNNERS w i m

COLLEGE DISTANCE RUNNERS DURING TREADMILL RUNNING AT 12 mph (5.3 m/sec) AND 0% GRADE"

.- - - - - - - -

World Class Runners

Middle- Long College

Distance Marathon Runners Variable ( n = l l ) ( n = 8 ) ( n = 8 ) F P

A t 9 riiinures Heart rate (bpm) 179.27 177.25 187.62 3.51 <0.05 Perceived exertion 13.00 12.00 14.75 3.92 <0.03 f": (liter/min) 109.80 111.75 144.75 12.71 <0.001

At I I riii~iures Heart rate (bpm) 182.82 179.12 189.37 3.54 <0.05 Perceived exertion 14.00 12.50 16.75 7.91 <0.002 3, (Iiter/min) 120.20 120.37 154.12 13.70 <0.001

* First 7 minutes were run at 10 mph, 0% grade.

0" .> X

I a

P -

10 MPH 12MPH -I-

< .001 < .001 < ,001

6 9 12

MINUTE OF EXERCISE

FIGURE 5 . Percent of ~ O Z m n x in the elite marathon (0-0) and middle-long distance runners (0-0) and the college middle distance runners (0-0) during submaximal exercise.

160

150

140

130

2 120 .- E L 110

100

Y

9 0 .

80

70

Annals New York Academy of Sciences - - - - -

-

- -

lOMPH 12 MPH -I-

e <.OOI <.001 c.001

6 9 12

MINUTE OF EXCERCISE

FIGURE 6. Ventilatory minute volume for the elite marathon (0-0) and middle- long distance runners (0-0) and the college middle distance runners (0-0) during submaximal exercise.

12 mph resulted in a mean lactate level of 31 mg% in the elite runners and 69 mg% in the less capable runners. The observed F ratio of 18.66 was significant at the 0.001 level (TABLE 3).

The literature dealing with perceived exertion contains a substantial amount of contradictory evidence concerning the primary physiological input( s) to the “effort sense.” Some investigators, for example, have proposed that heart rate is a primary cue,2o others have suggested that ventilatory minute volume is a key ~ t i m u l u s , ~ ~ ~ 28 and still others have argued that accumulation of metabolites in the working muscles represents a potent These arguments have his- torically centered around the issue of “central” (e.g., heart rate or ventilation) vensus “local” (e.g., lactate accumulation) considerations. In order to evaluate the relationship of perceived exertion with exercise heart rate, ventilatory minute volume and lactate accumulation, these variables were intercorrelated. The correlation matrix appears in TABLE 6. The raw data utilized in this analysis were obtained during the 11th minute of submaximal exercise (12 mph, 0% grade) with the exception that the lactate data were based upon the assay of blood drawn 3 minutes following the exercise bout.

Inspection of TABLE 6 reveals that RPE was significantly correlated with each of the variables, although the magnitude of the correlations differed sub-


stantially. Heart rate, for example, accounted for only 18% of the variance, while lactate accounted for 37% or twice as much of the variance. Ventilatory minute volume was intermediary, accounting for 27% of the variance. Hence, while causality in no way can be argued, it is obvious that lactate accumulation is the single best predictor of the runner’s subjective estimate of perceptual cost.

SUMMARY

The findings of this investigation can be interprcted in a straightforward fashion for the most part. First, the psychometric data reveal that elite distance runners resemble outstanding athletes in other sports such as wrestling and rowing, and their uflect (or mood) seems to be consistently superior to that of the general population. Further, since they do not differ from the general population on personality traits such as extroversion-introversion and neuroticism stability (enduring qualities), it is theorized that the positive affective profiles (states) reflect the consequence of involvement in distance running, not an antecedent or selection factor.

Second, the interview data can be interpreted as suggesting that distance runners belong to a rather unique subculture in various ways besides being affectively one standard deviation from the population mean. This uniqueness is reflected in their consummatory behavior as relates to the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, and aspirin. Also, their daily investment in running and various forms of training averages 2% hours, which clearly has vocational con- notations. The interview data also suggests that many motivational forces were operative in terms of initial involvement in running, but the most frequently cited explanations were extrinsic in nature. On the other hand, the reasons for adherence were both extrinsic and intrinsic, and there was not a single runner who did not report that he would continue running once the extrinsic rewards were gone.

The major way in which the elite marathoners studied in this investigation differed from those we have interviewed previously (nonelite), was in their cognitive activity during Competition. Whereas the nonelite employ a cognitive strategy designed to dissociate painful input, the elite runner associates and attempts to process this information, or “read his body” and modulate pace

TABLE 6

VENTILATORY MINUTE VOLUME, AND LACTATE ACCUMULATION DURING SUBMAXIMAL RUNNING AT 12 rnph AND 0% GRADE ( n = 2 7 )

CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PERCEIVED EXERTION, HEART RATE,

Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4

1. Perceived exertion - 0.43 * 0.52 t 0.61 t 2. Heart rate (bprn) - 0.14 0.44 * 3. 3, (Iiter/rnin) - 0.65 t 4. Lactate (rng % ) -

* p <0.05. t p <0.01.


accordingly. The elite runner does not place much emphasis on “the wall” or “pain zones,” and there are probably at least two reasons why they differ from the nonelite runner in this respect. First, their physiological superiority permits them to run at a greater percentage of their maximum without encountering discomfort. The elite marathoners, for example, had a mean lactate level of 31 mg% in connection with treadmill running at 12 mph, whereas the less capable runners manifested values twice this level. Also, lactate was found to be the best single predictor of “effort sense” in this study. Second, it is quite likely that elite runners avoid pain zones and fail to come up against the wall simply because they associate, i.e., monitor sensory input, and adjust their pace accordingly, with the net result that “pain” is avoided. Of course, and this must be kept in mind, the elite runner can afford the luxury of associating, whereas the nonelite cannot. This overall matter is summarized schematically in FIG- URE 7.

ID IS SO CIA TI ON^ IASSOCIATION~

PERCEPTION

EFFORT ‘ ‘\

0 0

/ 0

0

FIGURE 7. Coping strategies used in the perception of effort.

On the basis of our interviews it seems reasonable to propose that marathoners might adopt what appears to be two rather divergent *“coping strategies.” In the one instance it is possible to dissociate sensory input because of the discomfort it creates, and in the other case it is possible to cope by means of associating or “paying attention to ‘bodily’ signals.” In terms of perception of effort these two cognitive strategies are best viewed as rather diverse approaches with the first basically turning the perceptostat on, and the tatter turning it off. In work with young adult males the efficacy of dissociation has been demonstrated by Morgan et aZ.*:’ whereby endurance performance has been consistently facilitated. However, their work was carried out under laboratory conditions with continuous monitoring designed to identify biomedical indices that might contraindicate continued exertion. In this overall context the senior author had occasion to interview a number of casualties following the 1976 “City to Surf” run that is held annually in Sydney, Australia. One young male runner was brought to the medical facility complaining of intense pain in both lower legs.


The runner reported that he experienced pain in one leg at approximately 3 miles into the run and attempted to “run through the pain”; later he experienced similar pain in the opposite limb and attempted to fight through this “pain zone” as well; finally, he had to simply discontinue because the pain became unbear- able. It seems reasonable to classify the runner’s predominant cognitive strategy as being one of dissociation. Subsequent radiologic examination revealed clean fractures of both the left and right fibula. In all likelihood these injuries could have been prevented had the runner not attempted to dissociate the painful input (signals). Of course, this would have meant dropping out of the run and losing the prior investment of time and training. In other words, while dissociation can facilitate endurance performance 23 under certain conditions, it also carries the attendant risk of tissue, organ, and system(s) trauma.

A simplistic analogy can be drawn between the runner and the household furnace. The furnace is driven by a thermostat, and by analogy we can think of the runner as being driven by his or her perceptostat (FIGURE 7). The perceptostat can be viewed as the center of a sensory system that integrates all other sensory systems along with information stores built from past environ- mental experiences. If one were to turn a thermostat completely on or off when temperature demands operated in opposing directions, there would be a system failure. Also, a thermostat that is not finely tuned will work, but it will be characterized by inefficiency. Most of us have experienced the consequences .of a malfunctioning thermostat in that it consistently overshoots and under- shoots with the result that it creates an environment that is either hot or cold, and the desired optimum reflected by the actual thermostat is seldom achieved. It is proposed that runners who dissociate resemble such a thermostat in many respects. First, dissociation results in turning the perceptostat off, and it stays off until alerted by a cue to resume functioning. The cut might come in the form of dyspnea or parathesia, or it might be triggered by more serious stimuli such as the onset of heat exhaustion or a bone fracture. At any rate, such an approach would be quite inefficient, and, unlike the elite runner who incurs a deficit at the outset of a run and then achieves a relative steady state through association, the dissociative runner by contrast would incur deficits throughout a run, begin to associate following receipt of “alerting” cues, adjust the pace, repay the deficit, and then return to the dissociative state. The consequence of utilizing such a strategy would be the inefficient utilization of fuel, and the net result would be that such a runner would eventually “come up against the wall,” perhaps discontinue the race, or, at best, simply perform at a level below his or her capability.

Since the elite marathon runners consumed significantly less oxygen at the same speed than the middle-long distance runners, and in view of the fact that they did not differ remarkably from a biomechanical standpoint, it would appear that their conscious focus on relaxation, albeit apparently informal, was responsible in part for the lower oxygen consumption. While these differences are small when viewed in terms of ml/kg*min, extension of such a difference across 42 kilometers takes on a significant meaning. At any rate, whether one’s chief concern is with performance or avoidance of trauma, an associative strategy would appear to be more efficacious than a dissociative one. A question that remains unanswered relates to the issue of whether the elite runners learn to employ associative techniques or whether they simply possess this quality. This may be an academic point, however, since individuals can readily be taught to either associate or d i~soc ia t e .~~


CONCLUSION

It is concluded that elite marathon runners are very similar from a psychometric standpoint to middle-long distance runners as well as world class athletes in other sports such as wrestling and crew. It is also concluded that elite marathon runners are characterized by positive mental health from an dective standpoint, and this positive affect is regarded as a consequence of training and competition since these world class athletes resemble the general population on most psychological traits. It is further concluded that the major distinguishing psychological dimension of the elite marathoner is in their “effort sense” in that these runners employ an associative cognitive strategy during competition.

REFERENCES

1. COSTILL, D. L. 1968. What Research Tells the Coach About Distance Running. AAHPER Publications. Washington, D.C.

2. MORGAN, W. P. & D. L. COSTILL. 1972. Psychological characteristics of the marathon runner. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 12: 4 2 4 6 .

3. COSTILL, D. L., H. THOMASON & E. ROBERTS. Fractional utilization of the aerobic capacity during distance running. Med. Sci. in Sports. 5: 248-252.

4. MORGAN, W. P. 1968. Personality characteristics of wrestlers participating in the world championships. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 8: 212-216.

5. MORGAN, W. P. 1971. Sport psychology. I n Psychomotor Domain: Movement Behavior. 1st edit. R. N. Singer, Ed. : 193-228. Lea & Febiger. Philadel- phia, Pa.

6. JOHNSON, R. W. & W. P. MORGAN. (In prep.) MMPI profiles of successful and and unsuccessful university athletes in twelve selected sports.

7. COSTILL, D. L. & E. L. Fox. 1969. Energetics of marathon running. Med. & Sci. Sports. 1: 81-86.

8. PUGH, L. G. C., J. L. CORBETT & R. H. JOHNSON. 1967. Rectal temperatures, weight losses, and sweat rates in marathon running. J. Appl. Physiol. 23:

9. COSTILL, D. L. & E. WINROW. 1970. Maximal oxygen intake among marathon runners. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 51: 317-320.

10. FINK, W. J., D. L. COSTILL & M. L. POLLOCK. 1977. Submaximal and maximal working capacity of elite distance runners. Part 11. Muscle fiber compo- sition and enzyme activities. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. This volume.

11. POLLOCK, M. L. 1977. Characteristics of elite class distance runners: Overview. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. This volume.

12. SPIELBERGER, C. D., R. L. GORSUCH & R. E. LUSHENE. 1970. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo Alto, Ca.

13. LANDY, F. J. & R. M. STERN. 1971. Factor analysis of a somatic perception questionnaire. J. Psychosom. Res. 15 179-181.

14. LUBIN, B. 1967. Manual for the Depression Adjective Checklist. Educational and Industrial Testing Service. San Diego, Ca.

15. MCNAIR, D. M., M. LORR & L. F. DROPPLEMAN. 1971. Profile of Mood States Manual. Educational and Industrial Testing Service. San Diego, Ca.

16. EYSENCK, H. J. & S. B. G. EYSENCK. 1968. Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service. San Diego, Ca.

17. SONSTROEM, R. J. 1974. Attitude testing examining certain psychological cor- relates of physical activity. Res. Quart. 4 5 93-103.

18. WATSON, L. Supernature. 1973. 1st edit. Doubleday. New York, N.Y. 19. POLLOCK, M. L. 1977. Submaximal and maximal working capacity in elite dis-

tance runners. Part I. Cardiorespiratory aspects. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. This volume.

345-352.


20. BORG, G. A. V. 1973. Perceived exertion: A note on “history” and methods. Med. Sci. Sports. 5: 90-93.

21. NAGLE, F. J., W. P. MORGAN, R. 0. HELLICKSON, R. C. SERFASS & J. F. ALEXAN- DER. 1975. Spotting success traits in Olympic contenders. Physician Sports- med. 3: 31-34.

22. MORGAN, W. P. & R. W. JOHNSON. 1976. Psychological characterization of na- tional level oarsmen differing in level of ability. Int. J. Sport. Psychol. In press.

23. MORGAN, W. P., D. H. HORSTMAN & A. CYMERMAN. (In prep.) Psychoendocrine responses to vigorous physical activity.

24. MORGAN, W. P. 1972. Hypnosis and muscular performance. I n Ergogenic Aids and Muscular Performance. 1st edit. W. P. Morgan, Ed. : 193-233. Academic Press. New York, N.Y.

25. MORGAN, W. P., P. B. RAVEN, B. L. DRINKWATER & S. M. HORVATH. 1973. Perceptual and metabolic responsivity to standard bicycle ergometry following various hypnotio suggestions. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypnosis. 21: 86-101.

26. MORGAN, W. P., K. HIROTA, G. WEITZ & B. BALKE. 1976. Hypnotic perturba- tion of perceived exertion: Ventilatory consequences. Amer. J. Clin. Hypno- sis. 18: 182-190.

27. ARNE=, A. J. 1974. The influence of contingent reinforcement on heart rate during exercise. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

28. WINER, B. J . 1962. Statistical principles in experimental design. 1st edit. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, N.Y.

psychologic characterization of the elite distance … · a preliminary study of the personality...

Documents