Estimation Bias: Body Mass and Body Height in Endurance Athletes

Knechtle, Beat; Rüst, Christoph Alexander; Rosemann, Thomas; Knechtle, Patrizia; Bescós, Raúl

doi:10.2466/03.27.pms.115.6.833-844

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The observed self-report bias in these anthropometric characteristics was consistent with reports from previous research with different participant samples, confirming a general human tendency to overestimate height and -Gortari et al, 2007;Bes-Rastrollo et al, 2005;Bibiloni et al, 2016). The marathon runners' self-report bias for body mass ($0.6 kg), BMI ($0.35 kg Á m À2 ), and height ($0.4 cm) observed in this study was consistent with a previous study of athletes that reported an underestimate of BMI calculations by 0.4 kg Á m À2 (Knechtle et al, 2012). On the other hand, our marathon runners' self-report bias was smaller than has been reported in the general population (Ikeda, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Most existing studies of self-reported anthropometric data were conducted on general population samples, with little data available for athlete samples (Knechtle et al, 2012), particularly recreational marathon runners. BMI has been related to both sport performance (race time; Vickers & Vertosick, 2016) and prevalence of injuries (Vitez et al, 2017) in marathon runners who share qualities with both athletes and the general population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We hypothesized that marathon runners would overreport height and underreport body mass resulting in a lower BMI value (Nieto-Garc ıa et al, 1990;Seijo et al, 2018). Moreover, we assumed that the bias in selfreporting anthropometric characteristics in recreational marathon runners would be smaller than that observed among the general population, considering the specific physiological and psychological characteristics of athletes (Knechtle et al, 2012). For the purpose of this study, self-reported BMI referred to BMI calculated from self-reported height and body mass.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validity of Recreational Marathon Runners’ Self-Reported Anthropometric Data

Nikolaïdis

Knechtle

2020

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While studies on large samples of recreational runners have often relied on participants’ self-reported height and body mass, the validity of these data have not been investigated for this population. Hence, this study sought to examine the validity of self-reported anthropometric measures among recreational marathon runners. Female ( n = 32) and male ( n = 135) recreational marathon runners were requested to estimate their body mass and height (and we calculated their self-reported body mass index [BMI]), after which we took actual measures of their body mass and height and calculated their actual BMI. Participants’ self-reported values underestimated their actual body mass by 0.65 kg ( p < .001, η2 = 0.222) and their actual BMI by 0.35 kg ⋅ m−2 ( p < .001, η2 = 0.245). There was a significant Assessment Method × Sex Interaction for both body mass ( p = .019, η2 = 0.033) and BMI ( p = .017, η2 = 0.034), as women underestimated body mass values more than men. Participants overestimated their height by 0.44 cm ( p < .001, η2 = 0.075), but the interaction of sex and assessment method for height was not statistically significant. Underestimates of body mass correlated with marathon racing speed ( r = .24, p = .006) and body fat percentage ( r = −.29, p = .001) in men, but not in women ( p > .05). The disagreement between self-reported and measured anthropometric data in the present sample was lower than has been previously reported for the general population, suggesting that marathon runners may more accurately self-perceive and/or report their anthropometric characteristics. These findings are of practical value for health professionals and researchers (e.g., nutritionists and exercise physiologists) questionnaires to recreational marathon runners.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity of Recreational Marathon Runners’ Self-Reported Anthropometric Data

Nikolaïdis

Knechtle

2020

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is however worth noting that bodybuilders compete in weight class dependent divisions, and for the purpose of weight loss likely weighing themselves regularly. Furthermore comparisons with athletic populations between self-reported and actual weight and height have noted differences between 0.9 kg and 0.04 cm with the method generally accepted as precise [41]. Moreover, energy intake scaled for bodyweight was broadly similar to the previously published work in British natural bodybuilders corroborating our findings [13].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Nutritional strategies of British professional and amateur natural bodybuilders during competition preparation

Chappell

Simper

Helms

2019

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To prepare for competition, bodybuilders employ strategies based around: energy restriction, resistance training, cardiovascular exercise, isometric “posing”, and supplementation. Cohorts of professional (PRO) natural bodybuilders offer insights into how these strategies are implemented by elite competitors, and are undocumented in the scientific literature. Methods Forty-seven competitors (33 male (8 PRO, 25 amateur (AMA), 14 female (5 PRO, 9 AMA) participated in the study. All PROs were eligible to compete with the Drug Free Athletes Coalition (DFAC), and all AMAs were recruited from the British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF). Competitors in these organisations are subject to a polygraph and are drug tested in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency. We report the results of a cross-sectional study of drug free bodybuilders competing at BNBF qualifying events, and the DFAC and World Natural Bodybuilding Federation finals. Participants completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing dietary intake at three time points (start, middle and end) of competition preparation. Participants recorded their food intake over a 24-h period in grams and/or portions. Dietary intakes of PRO and AMA competitors were then compared. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test if nutrient intake changed over time, and for associations with division. Results Male PROs reported significantly ( p < 0.05) more bodybuilding experience than AMAs (PRO: 12.3 +/− 9.2, AMA: 2.4 +/− 1.4 yrs). Male PROs lost less body mass per week (PRO: 0.5 +/− 0.1, AMA: 0.7 +/− 0.2%, p < 0.05), and reported more weeks dieting (PRO: 28.1 +/− 8.1, AMA: 21.0 +/− 9.4 wks, P = 0.06). Significant differences ( p < 0.05) of carbohydrate and energy were also recorded, as well as a difference ( p = 0.03) in the estimated energy deficit (EED), between male PRO (2.0 +/− 5.5 kcal) and AMA (− 3.4 +/− 5.5 kcal) competitors. Conclusions Longer diets and slower weight loss utilized by PROs likely contributed towards a lower EED compared to the AMAs. Slower weight loss may constitute an effective strategy for maintaining energy availability and muscle mass during an energy deficit. These findings require corroboration, but will interest bodybuilders and coaches. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12970-019-0302-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Relevant to sport, women are more aware of their body composition. Knechtle, Rosemann, Knechtle, and Bescos [ 28 ] investigated gender differences in Basic Metabolic Index (BMI) estimates collected before races in different sports between 2006 and 2011. Men were more than twice as likely to misjudge their BMI compared to women (12.4% vs. 5.2%).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How accurate are runners’ prospective predictions of their race times?

Liverakos¹,

McIntosh²,

Moulin³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metacognition is a domain which has illuminated our understanding of the regulation of cognition, but has yet to be applied in detail to more physical activities. We used half marathon finish time predictions from 7211 runners to investigate the factors that influence running performance metacognitive accuracy. In particular, we were concerned with the effects of experience, gender, and age on calibration. We expected more experienced runners to be better calibrated than less experienced ones. Given analogous findings in the domain of metacognition, we expected women to be less overconfident in their predictions, and better calibrated than male runners. Based on the metacognition literature, we expected that if older runners have effectively learned from previous experience, they would be as well-calibrated as younger runners. In contrast, uninformed inferences not based on performance feedback would lead to overestimating performance for older compared to younger runners. As expected, experience in terms of both club membership and previous race completion improved calibration. Unexpectedly though, females were more overconfident than males, overestimating their performance and demonstrating poorer calibration. A positive relationship was observed between age and prediction accuracy, with older runners showing better calibration. The present study demonstrates that data, collected before a test of physical activity, can inform our understanding of how participants anticipate their performance, and how this ability is affected by a number of demographic and situational variables. Athletes and coaches alike should be aware of these variables to better understand, organise, plan, and predict running performance, potentially leading to more appropriate training sessions and faster race finish times.

show abstract

Estimation Bias: Body Mass and Body Height in Endurance Athletes

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Validity of Recreational Marathon Runners’ Self-Reported Anthropometric Data

Validity of Recreational Marathon Runners’ Self-Reported Anthropometric Data

Nutritional strategies of British professional and amateur natural bodybuilders during competition preparation

How accurate are runners’ prospective predictions of their race times?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About