1
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Anthropometric profiles and body 
composition of male runners 
at different distances
Aleksandra Stachoń , Jadwiga Pietraszewska  & Anna Burdukiewicz *
Anthropometric parameters are crucial prerequisite to achieve success in professional running 
sports. However, it is not clear how these parameters are relevant for athletes performing on a less 
demanding sport level as academic competitions. To help coaches and selectors working on this 
level, we have explored anthropometric variables and body composition in 68 academic athletes: 
26 sprinters, 22 middle distance runners, and 20 long distance runners. Sprinters have a more 
massive body shape, shorter lower legs in relation to the length of the thigh, broader shoulders and 
narrower hips, greater musculature and cellular mass. A slender figure, a longer shin, and the greatest 
subcutaneous fat and extracellular mass characterize long-distance runners. Middle-distance runners 
are the slimmest, and have a narrow trunk and little subcutaneous fat. Sprinters and long-distance 
runners are mesomorphic, while middle-distance runners present more mixed mesomorph-ectomorph 
type. The principal component analysis highlighted the importance of the overall size of the body, 
limbs musculature and the length of the lower limb together with its segments, and also body fatness. 
This approach emphasized the morphological distinctiveness of runners at particular distances and 
allows the use of somatic features as predictors of running performance.
Running is the most popular and, at the same time, the simplest form of movement that brings multi-directional 
benefits to the body, including improving the functioning of the heart, nervous and digestive  systems1. The 
popularization of this sport among amateurs is facilitated by the fact that it can be practiced at various distances, 
and various technical solutions are available to support training  control2,3. In recent years, the popularization of 
running as a form of physical recreation has resulted in this issue being reflected in numerous scientific  works4. 
Physiological aspects of running performance were studied, and issues related to running economy and energy 
costs were  analyzed5,6. In addition, biomechanical aspects affecting the running economy have been  studied7–9.
The issue of morphological diversity of runners focused on the characteristics of body proportions, body com-
position and somatic structure of competitors of specific distances and the impact of anthropometric features on 
the results achieved by  athletes10. It has been shown that professional athletes (Olympic champions, finalists, and 
running event participants) are clearly differentiated in age, height and body  weight11,12. Sprint champions tend 
to be heavier than lower-ranked competitors, while distance runners show the opposite  trend11,13. A cohort study 
including elite and leisure runners shows that body composition is a better predictor of running performance 
than body mass index. Furthermore, fat mass was found to be negatively associated with running speed. High val-
ues of the fat-free index had a positive effect on the performance of women, while no such relationship was found 
for  men14. In turn body composition studies of University level male track and field athlete of India have shown 
that sprinters have the lowest body fat. However, there was no significant difference between middle and long 
distance  runners15. The Sheldon’ typology modified by Heath and  Carter16 is often used to assess the physique 
in sports. That typology allows the assessment of body shape in the form of a somatotype that is understood as a 
description of the current morphological state of an individual. The somatotype is expressed by three numbers, 
each of which represents one of the basic components: endomorphy, mesomorphy and  ectomorphy17. Endomor-
phy is relative fatness, mesomorphy is characterized by relative musculo-skeletal robustness and ectomorphy 
is relative linearity or slenderness of a physique. Highly trained athletes also differ from the general population 
of athletes by having less endomorphy and greater mesomorphy. Long distance runners who do mostly aerobic 
training are less endomorphic and mesomorphic but have more ectomorphy than other  athletes16. Similar trends 
have been reported in the young elite middle and long distance  runners18 and Iranian cross-country  runners19. 
However, the cited studies had limitations related to, e.g., the number of studied athletes and their sports level.
OPEN
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, al. Ignacego 
Jana Paderewskiego 35, 51-612 Wrocław, Poland. *email: anna.burdukiewicz@awf.wroc.pl
2
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
As mentioned above, the body morphology of athletes is the result of selection and adaptation of the body 
to training loads, which differ in individual  disciplines20. Running at different distances makes it necessary to 
use various training  methods21. The volume and intensity of training are adapted to the distance the athlete will 
face. Optimizing selection processes and training methods based on the somatic factors seem to be essential to 
success in running at particular  distances22. Our study aims to determine anthropometric profiles, including 
body size and proportions, somatotype and body composition of long-, middle- and short-distance runners. 
Our hypothesis is: the long-, middle- and short-distance runners are diversified in body size and proportions, 
somatotype as well as in body composition, which may be called as ‘various anthropometric profiles’.
Materials and methods
Participants
Sixty eight male college athletes (age 20.7 ± 2.05 yrs old) participated in the study. This sample included 26 sprint-
ers (S), 22 middle distance runners (M) and 20 long distance runners (L). The runners were classified into the 
S, M or L groups according to their declaration of participation in sprints (200 m and 400 m), middle distances 
(800 m and 1500 m) and long distances (3000 m, 5000 m, 10,000 m). The athletes were involved in regional and 
national level competitions and trained at least 4 times a week for 2 h per day. Age and training experience did 
not significantly differ among the surveyed athletes: sprinters (20.37 ± 1.71 yrs old, 5.16 ± 2.21 years of experi-
ence), middle-distance runners (20.31 ± 1.55 yrs old, 5.50 ± 2.46 years of experience), long-distance runners 
(21.39 ± 2.74 yrs old, 6.75 ± 2.34 years of experience).
Academic athletes practice sports in the clubs of the Academic Sports Associations functioning at Wrocław 
universities. The athletes who fulfilled these criteria inquired for the study. The criterion for inclusion in the 
study was at least a 3 years of practice and competed at national level, no injuries and no special diets in the 
period preceding the study. The conditions for exclusion were a break in training and injuries or diseases that 
prevented the measurements.
The research was approved by the Senate’s Research Bioethics Commission of the Wroclaw University of 
Health and Sport Sciences, Poland [consent number 2/2020], and conducted according to the requirements 
stipulated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were fully informed about all experimental procedures 
and written informed consent was obtained from all of them.
Measurements and calculations
The measurements were carried out taking into account the training periodization, at the beginning of the 
preparation period and in the Central Research Laboratory of Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, 
Poland (Quality Management System Certificate: PN-EN ISO 9001:2015—Certificate Reg. No.: PW-15105-22X). 
All participants visited the laboratory once and underwent a series of measurements.
Measurements were made by experienced anthropometrists in the morning at room temperature about 
22-24ºC. Anthropometric measurements were performed following measurement protocols established by the 
International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK). Each anthropometrist took a series of 
measurements assigned to them and was accompanied by a person recording them. Measurements were taken 
on the right side of the participant’s body. Anthropometric equipment from GPM Siber Hegner Machinery 
Ltd. was used. (Zurich, Switzerland): an anthropometer, a sliding caliper—Martin type, a spreading caliper, a 
skinfold caliper, an anthropometric tape. Body weight was measured using an electronic scale with an accuracy 
of 0.1 kg (Fawag, Lublin, Poland). Each measure was taken two times by the same investigator. Technical error 
of measurement was < 3% for skinfolds, and < 1% for breadths, lengths and girths. The mean values were used 
in the statistical analysis.
The results of measurements recommended for monitoring  athletes23 were included in the study. Heights, 
lengths, widths and circumferences were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm: body height, lower limb height to 
trochanterion point, thigh length between trochanterion and tibiale laterale points, tibia length between tibiale 
mediale and sphyrion tibiale points, foot length, upper limb length between acromiale and dactylion points, 
arm length between acromiale and radiale points, forearm length between radiale and stylion points, biacro-
mial breadth, biiliocristal breadth, biepicondylar humerus breadth, biepicondylar femur breadth, ankle breadth 
between malleolare tibiale and malleolare fibulare points. The following girths were measured: chest at the level 
of the mesosternale point, gluteal at the level of the greatest posterior protuberance of the buttocks, arm flexed, 
forearm, thigh taken 1 cm below the level of the gluteal fold and calf. Skinfold sites were landmarked at the sub-
scapular, abdominal, supraspinale, triceps, forearm, front thigh and medial calf. All sites were then measured 
using caliper with 10 g ×  mm−2 constant pressure.
The measured features were used to calculate the following indices: body mass index BMI (body mass/body 
 height2 [kg/m2]), lower limb length index (lower limb length/body height), upper limb index (upper limb length/
body height), crural index (tibia length/thigh length), biacromial index (biacromial breadth/body height), biili-
ocristal index (biiliocristal breadth/body height), biiliocristal-acromiale index (biiliocristal breadth/biacromial 
breadth), bone massiveness index (biepicondylar femur breadth + ankle breadth/body height), flexed arm girth 
index (flexed arm circumference/arm length), forearm girth index (forearm circumference/forearm length), thigh 
girth index (thigh circumference/thigh length), calf girth index (calf circumference/tibia length).
In addition, two indices characterizing subcutaneous fat were calculated: fat distribution index and subcu-
taneous fat index. The fat distribution index is the quotient of the sum of skinfolds on limb segments (∑ tri-
ceps + forearm + front thigh + medial calf) and trunk (∑ subscapular + supraspinale + abdominal). Subcutaneous 
fat index (SFI) takes into account trunk and extremity skinfolds and body height (∑ trunk skinfolds + ∑ limbs 
skinfolds/body height)24.
3
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
The somatotype of each subject was also determined according to Sheldon’s method, modified by Heath and 
 Carter16. Somatotype Calculation and Analysis software classified the average somatotype of each group and 
illustrated the outcome in a somatotype  chart25.
The non-invasive bioelectrical impedance method assessed body composition with tetrapolar version hand-
to-foot electrodes (BIA 101 analyzer, Akern, Bodygram 1.31 software). Measurements were made considering 
the manufacturer’s rules for obtaining correct results. The following features were used in the analysis: fat mass 
(FM) [kg, %], body cell mass (BCM) [kg, %] and extracellular mass (ECM) [kg, %].
An interview was conducted with the respondents to collect information on the date of birth and training 
experience, diets and supplements, and the occurrence of injuries.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica 13.3 package (TIBCO Software Inc.). Descriptive statistics 
were used for the quantitative analysis of the collected data. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to examine the dis-
tributions of the analyzed features. Differentiation in the level of development of the analyzed features between 
the groups was assessed using the analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey HSD test for unequal samples. The 
results in the text and tables are presented in the form of mean and standard deviation. The significance level for 
all tests and statistical procedures was set at an p value of 0.05.
Differences in somatic composition were examined using the SANOVA—Somatotype Analysis of Variance 
 procedure25. A ternary plot was used to examine the relationship between the three components of body com-
position (FM, BCM, ECM) in groups of runners. The distribution of individual competitors’ points in the three 
body composition variables system was assessed using the χ2 test. Principal component (PC) analysis was per-
formed, expressing a linear combination of the morphological variables. The analysis was preceded by a Box-Cox 
transformation, which enabled the principal components to be based on correlations. The number of factors was 
defined using the Kaiser  criterion26.
Institutional review board
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics 
Committee of the University School of Physical Education in Wrocław, Poland (2/2020).
Informed consent
Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
Results
Short-distance runners are characterized by significantly higher body weight than competitors from other groups 
(Table 1). Body height, length of the lower and upper limbs as well as their segments did not show any significant 
differences between the groups of runners. Among the width features, only the biacromial diameter is signifi-
cantly wider in the group of sprinters compared to middle-distance runners. The massiveness of the skeleton 
assessed by the width of the elbow, knee and inner ankle reaches the highest values among examined sprinters. 
All the analyzed circumferences of the trunk and limb segments are the largest in the group of short-distance 
runners. The significantly thickest supraspinale and triceps skinfolds are characteristic of long-distance runners. 
Also, the sum of skinfolds on the trunk and limb segments is significantly greater in long-distance runners.
BMI is significantly higher in the group of sprinters. The smallest massiveness is characteristic of middle-
distance runners (Table 2). The general proportions of the length of the upper and lower limbs are similar in all 
groups of runners, but the proportions of functional segments differ. Sprinters are characterized by a significantly 
shorter tibia in relation to the length of the thigh compared to other groups of runners. They also have broader 
shoulders in relation to body height. The highest values of the hip width index characterize long-distance runners. 
The lowest values of the discussed indicator occurred among sprinters. The relative massiveness of the epiphysis 
of the lower limb is significantly lower among short- and medium-distance runners. Significantly larger girths 
of limb segments in relation to their length occurred among sprinters compared to other groups.
The distribution of subcutaneous fat on the limbs and trunk expressed by the fat distribution index does not 
significantly differ between the groups of runners (Table 2). However, among the study participants, there was a 
tendency to increase the fatness of the limbs in relation to the trunk with the lengthening of the distance. The low-
est adiposity of the limbs in relation to the adiposity of the trunk occurs in sprinters, while the highest—applies 
to the group of long-distance runners. The content of subcutaneous fat in relation to body height, expressed by 
the subcutaneous fat index, is significantly lower in the groups of short- and medium-distance runners.
Endomorphy is significantly lower in groups of short and middle distance runners than in long distance 
runners (Table 2). On the other hand, the mesomorphic component reaches significantly higher values in the 
group of short and long distance runners. However, significantly greater ectomorphy is characteristic of middle 
distance runners compared to sprinters. The average somatotype of middle runners are mesomorph-ectomorph 
(1.60–3.82–3.81), while sprinters (1.68–4.94–2.90) and long distance runners (2.11–4.72–3.36) are ectomorphic 
mesomorphs (Fig. 1). The somatotype variance analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the soma-
totypes of runners (F = 7.41; p = 0.001).
The average values of the fat and extracellular mass percentages do not show statistically significant differences 
between the groups. In contrast, cell mass is significantly higher in sprinters compared to other groups. Distribu-
tions of individual competitors’ points in the system of three body composition variables (Fig. 2) assessed with 
the χ2 test also show statistically significant differences between groups (χ2 = 31.49, p < 0.05).
As a result of the principal components analysis, three principal components were identified, explaining the 
problem in approximately 74% (Table 3). The first principal component (PC1), which has the greatest part in total 
4
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
variability, is highly correlated with body weight and height, shoulder width and hip width, length of the lower 
limb and its segments, length of the upper limb, as well as with the muscle circumferences of the arm, forearm, 
thighs and thighs. Thus, the mentioned variable characterizes the overall size of the body. The second principal 
component (PC2) is positively correlated with muscle circumferences and negatively correlated with the length 
of the lower limb, the length of the thigh and the tibia. It can therefore be concluded that PC2 characterizes the 
massiveness and proportions of the limbs. This principal component divides the participants into two groups: 
(1) athletes with well-developed musculature, especially of the upper limb, and (2) athletes with a tendency to 
have longer lower limbs. In the case of the third principal component (PC3), the most diagnostic features are the 
sum of skinfolds on the trunk and the sum of skinfolds on the limbs. This component characterizes body fatness.
Table 4 summarizes the mean principal component scores of the athletes from different distances. It can 
be concluded that the PC2 and PC3 components are significantly differentiated. The sprinter group’s overall 
body size (including massiveness and muscularity) is slightly higher. The second principal component PC2 
substantially differs between the studied groups. Intergroup differentiation in the light of PC3 is also statistically 
significant. There is clearly a higher level of development of the analyzed muscle girths in short-distance athletes. 
Attention is drawn to the distinctiveness of long-distance runners, characterized by greater subcutaneous fat 
compared to competitors from other groups.
Discussion
In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have introduced in the manuscript the following sentence: 
The results obtained make it possible to present the detailed somatic characteristics of runners at different dis-
tances, confirming the hypothesis that their anthropometric profiles are differentiated. The surveyed men were 
of similar age and had similar training experience. It is well known that running performance is determined by 
power output and running  efficiency6. The first factor is related to the athlete’s physiological profile, while the 
second factor characterizes the efficiency in the conversion of power to translocation. It is directly related to the 
Table 1.  Statistical characteristics and inter-group differences of the anthropometric features in short 
(S), middle (M) and long (L) distance runners (SD—standard deviation; asignificantly different from M; 
bsignificantly different from L).
Group of runners
Variable
S
M
L
p
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Body mass [kg]
74.3 (6.56)b
69.2 (7.77)
67.6 (8.99)
0.011
Body height [cm]
180.6 (6.16)
181.3 (6.33)
177.3 (6.91)
0.109
Lower limb length [cm]
95.3 (3.99)
95.9 (4.34)
94.0 (3.89)
0.297
Thigh length [cm]
47.6 (2.17)
47.3 (2.22)
46.7 (2.07)
0.183
Tibia length [cm]
40.2 (1.89)
40.6 (2.13)
40.2 (1.77)
0.219
Foot length [cm]
27.0 (1.35)
26.7 (1.41)
26.6 (1.30)
0.603
Upper limb length [cm]
78.7 (3.02)
79.1 (3.21)
78.1 (3.13)
0.598
Arm length [cm]
33.8 (1.62)
34.0 (1.42)
33.6 (1.44)
0.695
Forearm length [cm]
26.1 (1.13)
26.4 (1.49)
25.8 (1.32)
0.259
Biacromial breadth [cm]
41.5 (1.86)a
40.0 (1.72)
40.7 (2.05)
0.024
Biiliocristal breadth [cm]
28.0 (1.50)
27.3 (1.55)
28.2 (1.92)
0.206
Humerus breadth [cm]
7.1 (0.48)
6.9 (0.37)
7.0 (0.67)
0.361
Femur breadth [cm]
9.8 (0.44)
9.6 (0.36)
9.8 (0.52)
0.185
Ankle breadth [cm]
7.7 (0.37)
7.4 (0.42)
7.5 (0.40)
0.130
Chest girth [cm]
95.3 (3.88)
93.2 (4.41)
93.6 (6.64)
0.333
Gluteal girth [cm]
96.2 (3.83)
94.5 (4.48)
93.6 (4.15)
0.111
Arm flexed girth [cm]
31.2 (1.75)ab
28.9 (1.63)
29.4 (2.37)
0.000
Forearm girth [cm]
25.9 (1.71)
24.8 (1.53)
25.1(1.55)
0.058
Thigh girth [cm]
55.5 (3.01)ab
53.1 (3.10)
51.8 (3.14)
0.001
Calf girth [cm]
37.1 (2.46)a
35.3 (2.65)
35.5 (2.28)
0.022
Subscapular skinfold [mm]
7.8(1.32)
7.1 (1.10)
8.1 (2.19)
0.095
Supraspinale skinfold [mm]
5.7 (1.44)b
5.6 (1.51)b
7.6 (3.47)
0.009
Abdominal skinfold [mm]
6.1(1.75)
6.2 (1.88)
7.2 (2.88)
0.195
Triceps skinfold [mm]
4.4 (1.36)b
4.6 (1.28)b
6.0 (2.56)
0.007
Forearm skinfold [mm]
3.1 (0.59)
3.0 (0.38)
3.3 (0.65)
0.119
Front thigh skinfold [mm]
7.9 (1.06)
7.4 (1.12)
8.2 (1.51)
0.107
Medial calf skinfold [mm]
3.8 (0.83)
3.7 (0.97)
4.4 (1.23)
0.101
∑ trunk skinfolds
19.6 (3.57
18.9 (3.76)b
22.9 (7.87)
0.038
∑ limbs skinfolds
17.2 (3.32)b
17.0 (3.21)b
20.3 (5.11)
0.010
5
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Table 2.  Statistical characteristics and inter-group differences of the anthropometric indices, somatotype’s 
components and body composition in short (S), middle (M) and long (L) distance runners (SD—standard 
deviation; asignificantly different from M; bsignificantly different from L).
Group
S
M
L
p
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Body proportions
 Body mass index
22.76 (1.42)ab
20.99 (1.54)
21.44 (1.89)
0.001
 Lower limb length index
52.75 (1.31)
52.88 (1.17)
53.00 (1.37)
0.801
 Upper limb length index
43.59 (1.02)
43.61 (0.91)
44.06 (1.12)
0.244
 Crural index
84.52 (2.12)ab
85.91 (1.89)
86.61 (1.90)
0.002
 Biacromial index
22.98 (1.05)a
22.05 (1.02)b
22.97 (1.20)
0.007
 Biiliocristal index
15.50 (0.90)
15.06 (0.79)b
15.87 (0.86)
0.012
 Biiliocristal-acromiale index
67.48 (3.34)
68.37 (3.95)
69.19 (3.71)
0.294
 Bone massiveness index
9.66 (0.39)a
9.37 (0.20)b
9.75 (0.47)
0.002
 Flexed arm girth index
92.69 (6.94)ab
85.14 (5.14)
87.69 (6.97)
0.000
 Forearm girth index
99.33 (6.62)a
94.13 (7.40)
97.71 (6.75)
0.038
 Thigh girth index
116.62 (7.04)b
112.44 (6.67)
111.57 (6.26)
0.026
 Calf girth index
92.34 (6.67)a
86.02 (6.01)
87.96 (5.74)
0.002
 Fat distribution index
0.89 (0.18)
0.91 (0.18)
0.92 (0.20)
0.823
 Subcutaneous fat index
20.44 (3.52)b
19.81 (3.25)b
24.33 (6.23)
0.003
Somatotype components
 Endomorphy
1.68 (0.38)b
1.60 (0.31)b
2.11 (0.76)
0.004
 Mesomorphy
4.94 (1.00)a
3.82 (0.75)b
4.72 (1.12)
0.000
 Ectomorphy
2.90 (0.77)a
3.81 (0.80)
3.36 (0.84)
0.001
 Body composition
 % Fat mass
17.06 (3.31)
18.71 (3.57)
18.91 (2.52)
0.095
 % Extracellular mass
31.53 (7.27)
32.89 (5.82)
33.22 (3.56)
0.583
 % Body cell mass
51.34 (6.56)ab
48.40 (7.45)
48.03 (3.13)
0.035
Figure 1.  Mean of somatotypes in groups of male runners (S—short distance, M—middle distance, L—long 
distance).
6
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Figure 2.  Distribution of runners in the system of three variables of body composition (○—short distance, Δ—
middle distance, □—long distance).
Table 3.  Principal components loadings and correlations between the components and original variables.
Variable
PC1
PC2
PC3
Eigenvalues
7.02
2.52
1.59
% total variance
46.82
16.77
10.63
Cumulative eigenvalues
7.02
9.54
11.13
% cumulative
46.82
63.59
74.21
Factor loadings
 Body mass
0.91
0.27
0.05
 Body height
0.84
− 0.35
0.03
 Leg length
0.84
− 0.49
− 0.04
 Thigh length
0.82
− 0.43
− 0.03
 Tibia length
0.73
− 0.54
0.02
 Foot length
0.77
− 0.13
0.14
 Arm length
0.79
− 0.39
0.06
 Biacromial breadth
0.54
0.35
− 0.05
 Biiliocristal breadth
0.65
0.06
0.06
 Arm flexed girth [cm]
0.66
0.66
− 0.18
 Forearm girth [cm]
0.64
0.64
− 0.08
 Thigh girth [cm]
0.73
0.44
− 0.10
 Calf girth [cm]
0.65
0.42
− 0.23
 ∑ trunk skinfolds
0.17
0.30
0.81
 ∑ extremities skinfolds
0.03
0.11
0.90
Table 4.  Mean principal component scores of the runners from different groups (S—short distance; M—
middle distance; L—long distance; asignificantly different from M; bsignificantly different from L).
Group
S
M
L
p
PC1
0.86
− 0.23
− 0.69
0.100
PC2
0.74a
− 0.91
0.03
0.001
PC3
− 0.41b
− 0.19
0.60
0.010
7
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
athlete’s biomechanical profile and depends on anthropometric dimensions, limb morphology, and learned and 
developed movement  patterns7,9.
As shown in other studies, height and length dimensions were slightly larger in the group of middle-distance 
 runners27. The body height of the athletes from the study groups was similar and oscillated around the value of 
the 50th percentile (178.7 cm) for the nationwide  population28. This suggests that this parameter is not important 
in the selection process for specific running distances. Body shape assessed by BMI turned out to be slimmer in 
the middle- and long-distance runners groups than in sprinters, which was also indicated by other  researchers29. 
In previously published studies, differences in body weight were noted depending on the results obtained by 
runners. The medalists of the Olympic Games in the distances of 100, 200, and 400 m were heavier compared to 
the finalists and other participants. In turn, the medalists at distances of 5,000 m and 10,000 m and the marathon 
were lighter than the finalists and other competitors participating in these  distances11. High body weight and 
BMI values in sprinters result from the fact that muscle mass plays a significantly role in their  efforts13, which 
was shown in the currently presented research in the form of a high level of sprinters’ mesomorphy. As previ-
ous studies have shown, effective sprinting requires strong deep muscles of the trunk (psoas major, transversus 
abdominis, and multifidus muscle), which, acting earlier than other muscles, are the basis of limb strength and 
thus affect the athlete’s sports  results30. Also, Tottori et al.31, comparing the cross-sectional areas of the trunk 
and lower limb muscles in sprinters, found significantly larger psoas major and gluteus maximus muscles than 
non-runners. In addition, they not only correlated significantly with 100 m sprint performance, but they turned 
out to be good predictors of top performance over that distance.
The upper body and arms also play an important role in running, providing balance and promoting efficient 
movement. In our research, the transverse dimensions of the trunk (shoulder width, hip width), skeletal mass 
and limb circumferences were significantly larger in sprinters, which is confirmed in other  studies31,32. No such 
differentiation was found between long- and middle-distance runners, confirming previous  observations33,34. The 
shape of the torso contributes to the locomotor efficiency and energetics of running, influencing the respiratory 
mechanics and biomechanics of the limbs with its  morphology33. Studies of variations in trunk morphology in 
the context of locomotor ability have shown a relationship between trunk shape and running  performance33. 
According to these results, people with a narrower torso can achieve higher  speeds33, which was confirmed by 
our research. In addition, as other studies have  shown34 less thoracic kyphosis and a flattened chest positively 
affect the mechanics of breathing (chest mobility). On the other hand, increased lordosis has a beneficial effect 
on the biomechanics of the lower limbs, playing an important role in mitigating the effects of shocks transmitted 
through the human spine during dynamic activities such as  running34. The width of the pelvis also affects the 
work of the psoas major muscle, affecting its rotation capacity and hip  flexors35.
The length proportions do not significantly differ between the examined groups of athletes. Slightly higher 
values of the lower limb length index and upper limb length index characterize long-distance runners, which 
was confirmed in other  studies9,36. In the presented work, it was shown that sprinters are characterized by slightly 
shorter lower limbs compared to other groups of athletes. Research by other authors shows that long legs are 
beneficial in sprinters, but only to the optimal level correlating with their  height37. If the lower limbs are above this 
optimal length, they can generate problems producing the high stride frequency that is a prerequisite for  good38. 
In the group of middle-distance runners, slightly longer lower limbs and their segments were demonstrated, as 
noted by other  authors39. Researchers also note that the main difference between long- and short-distance run-
ners is stride length, not running  pace40. Studies have shown that shorter distance runs require longer  strides41,42, 
which may be reflected in the proportions between the lower limb segments to some extent.
Bereket43 noted that the body’s size and proportions affect the energy of locomotion and the speed of move-
ment. It was found that taller people with a wider pelvis, having a longer lower leg move at a much higher optimal 
walking speed at a lower energy cost, which was justified, among others, by the importance of the length of the 
distal section in heat  dissipation44. The analysis of intergroup differences of proportions within the lower limb 
of runners at various distances carried out in the current study provided interesting results. The relationship 
between the proximal and distal segments of the lower limb is noteworthy. It was found that long-distance run-
ners have a relatively long shin (relative to the thigh), suggesting that long-term intense exercise may promote 
proportions that favore more efficient heat loss in the lower limb. On the other hand, sprinters have a significantly 
shorter shin in relation to the length of the thigh (crural index) compared to other groups of competitors. Also, 
Tomita et al.45 showed that the ratio of tibia length to femur length significantly correlated with running perfor-
mance in sprinters, suggesting that this particular morphological factor may play an important role in achieving 
better running performance in specialized 400 m sprinters.
Likewise, the relative slenderness of the thigh and lower leg are significant factors in running  economy46. In 
the presented studies, a significantly more massive skeleton, assessed by the width of the epiphyses, is charac-
teristic of long-distance runners, which can be justified by the influence of varied  effort47,48. The musculature 
of the limbs is shaped differently. Significantly larger circumferences of limb segments were found in sprinters 
compared to other groups of runners. Korhonen et al.49 showed that muscle thickness was a strong predictor of 
the braking forces generated during sprinting. Similarly, other studies have found that sprinters with higher lean 
body mass in the lower limbs showed higher mean power in the Wingate  test50. Current research has shown that 
long- and middle-distance runners are characterized by slimmer limb segments compared to sprinters, which 
has been confirmed in the  literature39.
The diversified energy cost of running over particular distances affects muscle mass development and body 
 fatness32. In addition, the amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue in different body regions may be of practical 
importance, as changes in subcutaneous adipose tissue distribution are also associated with changes in running 
 performance51. This enables skinfolds to be used as useful predictors of running performance. As noted by other 
 authors52, also in the presented study, it was found that little subcutaneous fat characterizes groups of short- 
and middle-distance runners. Thicker skinfolds are characteristic of long-distance runners, which may reflect 
8
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
differences in their  metabolism52,53. Subcutaneous adipose tissue is an important and most natural reservoir of 
energy necessary for athletes to perform long-term  efforts54. It also performs important endocrine  functions55. 
The distribution of subcutaneous fat is slightly different in the studied groups of athletes. Limb fatness relative 
to the trunk is low in sprinters and middle-distance runners, which can be explained by muscle group-specific 
adipose tissue loss due to systematic  training52.
Body composition is also an important characteristic of runners. Its basic components, adipose tissue and 
lean mass with cellular and acellular fractions, strongly correlate with the ability to increase muscle strength, 
contributing to improved performance and running  economy56. Using anthropometric and DXA methods to 
analyze body composition, it was shown that the low cost of locomotor energy was associated only with param-
eters indicating relative slenderness of the  body46. In a current BIA study, middle- and long-distance runners have 
been shown to have a slightly higher percentage of fat and extracellular mass compared to sprinters, reflecting 
their slimmer  physique27. Extracellular mass is known to include connective tissues such as collagen, elastin, 
skin, tendons and  bones57,58. In turn, the body cell mass responsible for metabolism is significantly higher in 
short-distance  runners13. Also, the distribution of individual athletes’ points in the system of three variables of 
body composition assessed with the χ2 test showed statistically significant differences between groups. Studies 
by other authors confirm that the differences in the body composition of runners are a consequence of different 
workloads resulting from the length of the distance  covered18,59.
The morphological characteristics of runners are supplemented by the somatotypological assessment, which 
allows for determining the size of endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy in the body  structure16. It should 
be noted that the athletes are slender with moderate musculature and low body fat, which has also been noted 
in other studies. SANOVA showed a statistically significant difference in the somatotypes of the tested runners. 
Middle-distance runners are mesomorph-ectomorph (1.60–3.82–3.81), and sprinters (1.68–4.94–2.90) and long-
distance runners (2.11–4.72–3.36) are an ectomorphic mesomorph. The somatotypes of the examined athletes are 
similar to the somatotypes of Croatian runners over various  distances27 and participants of the Olympic Games 
in  198416. Runners from Croatia presenting a higher sports level (were in the top 15 on the Croatian Athletic 
Association rank list for the specific event) than the academic runners surveyed in actual research are charac-
terized by higher values of endomorphy and ectomorphy (S: 2.0–4.2–3.0; M: 2.1–3.8–3.3; L: 2.6–3.5–3.7), while 
the mesomorphy in the groups of short- and long-distance runners is slightly lower. In turn, the participants 
of the 1984 Olympics clearly dominate the size of the mesomorphic component (S: 1.7–5.2–2.8; 400 m runners 
1.5–4.6–3.4; M: 1.5–4.3–3.6; L: 1.4–4.2–3.7), which is a consequence of their higher sports level.
Using principal components analysis made it possible to isolate three principal components explaining the 
problem in approximately 74%. The first principal component characterizes the overall size and development of 
musculature and does not significantly differ between the examined groups of runners. The second component 
differs significantly between short-distance and middle-distance competitors. It is positively correlated with 
muscle circumferences and negatively correlated with lower limb length, thigh length and lower leg length, con-
firming the observations of other authors indicating the relationship between a more linear body and running 
 economy46,60. The third principal component characterizes the body’s subcutaneous fat in terms of distribution. 
As previous studies have shown, the anthropometric assessment of athletes should include the assessment of all 
skinfolds, as the reduction of subcutaneous fat is not the same in all segments. In the case of runners, it concerns 
mainly the lower  limbs52.
The morphological distinctiveness of distance runners is expressed in overall body size, muscularity and fat-
ness as well as lower limb proportions. These characteristics should be particularly controlled by coaches during 
the selection process for individual competitions, as well as throughout the training period. The optimization of 
selection processes and training methods based on these characteristics seems to be an important element for 
achieving success in running at different distances.
Conclusions
The conducted analyses indicate the diversification of anthropometric profiles in runners of different distances. 
Sprinters dominate a more massive body shape, shorter lower legs in relation to the length of the thigh, broader 
shoulders and narrower hips, greater musculature and cellular mass. Long-distance runners are characterized 
by a slim figure, a high crural index, a slightly wider pelvis in relation to the width of the shoulders, and the 
greatest adiposity and extracellular mass. Middle-distance runners are the slimmest, and have a narrow trunk 
and little subcutaneous fat. The physique of sprinters and long-distance runners is dominated by mesomor-
phy, while middle-distance runners are mesomorph-ectomorph. The principal component analysis reduced the 
multidimensional structure to three variables: overall body size, limbs musculature and the length of the lower 
limb together with its segments, and body fatness. This approach emphasizes the morphological distinctiveness 
of runners at particular distances and allows the use of somatic features as predictors of running performance.
Our study revealed essential differences between the student athletes in the three running disciplines. How-
ever, in the future we plan to link this anthropometric diversity to the other relevant fields as biomechanics to 
find general success predictors in running. Moreover, we would like to confront our results with a similar study 
conducted on the cohort of the elite-level runners from the abovementioned disciplines. Therefore, we would be 
able to provide coaches and selectors with the robust set of success predictors both in the running performed on 
the elite and non-elite level. This way, future research of the morphological diversity of runners should focus on 
these somatic features indicated in this manuscript. The future study should be conducted in more homogene-
ous groups in terms of sports level, especially groups of high-level athletes and should analyze the importance 
of indicated features for better performance.
9
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Study limitations
The small size of the analyzed groups of athletes may limit the interpretation of the results. While the analysis 
was successful, increasing the sample size would have given a clearer picture of intergroup variability. In addi-
tion to that, the competitors were qualified to groups on the basis of a survey concerning the competitions and 
distances they competed on. However, this division may not be completed, as it happens that athletes change the 
distance during their career, which may affect the picture of morphological diversity. Interpretation may also be 
limited by the varied sports’ level of the respondents.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on 
reasonable request.
Received: 14 May 2023; Accepted: 15 October 2023
References
 1. Pedersen, B. K. & Saltin, B. Exercise as medicine: Evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. 
Scand. J. Med. Sci. 25, 1–72 (2015).
 2. Janssen, M., Scheerder, J., Thibaut, E., Brombacher, A. & Vos, S. Who uses running apps and sports watches? Determinants and 
consumer profiles of event runners’ usage of running-related smartphone applications and sports watches. PLoS One 12, e0181167 
(2017).
 3. Janssen, M. et al. Understanding different types of recreational runners and how they use running-related technology. IJERPH 17, 
2276 (2020).
 4. Eime, R. et al. Integrating public health and sport management: SPORT participation trends 2001–2010. Sport Manag. Rev. 18, 
207–217 (2015).
 5. Barnes, K. R. & Kilding, A. E. Running economy: Measurement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Med. Open 1, 1–15 (2015).
 6. Maldonado-Martin, S., Mujika, I. & Padilla, S. Influence of body mass and height on the energy cost of running in highly trained 
middle- and long-distance runners. Int. J. Sports Med. 23, 268–272 (2002).
 7. Folland, J., Allen, S., Black, M., Handsaker, J. & Forrester, S. Running technique is an important component of running economy 
and performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 49, 1412–1423 (2017).
 8. Kyröläinen, H., Belli, A. & Komi, P. V. Biomechanical factors affecting running economy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 33, 1330–1337 
(2001).
 9. Laumets, R. et al. Lower leg length is associated with running economy in high level Caucasian distance runners. J. Hum. Kinet. 
15, 229–239 (2017).
 10. Pavlović, R. & Kozina, Z. Differences in anthropometric characteristics and body composition of athletes in cyclic endurance-type 
activities: A case study. J. Adv. Sport Phys. Educ. 5, 225–234 (2022).
 11. Khosla, T. Standards on age, height and weight in Olympic running events for men. Br. J. Sports Med. 12, 97–101 (1978).
 12. Longo, A. F., Siffredi, C. R., Cardey, M. L., Aquilino, G. D. & Lentini, N. A. Age of peak performance in Olympic sports: A com-
parative research among disciplines. JHSE 11, 31–41 (2016).
 13. Barbieri, D. et al. Body composition and size in sprint athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 57, 1142–1146 (2017).
 14. Herrmann, F. R. et al. Running performance in a timed city run and body composition: A cross-sectional study in more than 3000 
runners. Nutrition 61, 1–7 (2019).
 15. Shafeeq, V. A., Abraham, G. & Raphel, S. Evaluation of body composition and somatotype characteristics of male track and field 
athletes in India. J. Exp. Sci. 1, 7–10 (2010).
 16. Carter, J. E. L. & Heath, B. H. Somatotyping: Development and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
 17. Carter, L. Somatotyping. in Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body Measurement for Sports and Health Courses (eds: Kevin Norton 
& Tim Olds) 147–170 (University of New South Wales Press, 1996).
 18. Muñoz, C., Muros, J., López-Belmonte, Ó. & Zabala, M. Anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of 
elite male young runners. IJERPH 17, 674 (2020).
 19. Arazi, H., Mirzaei, B. & Nobari, H. Anthropometric profile, body composition and somatotyping of national Iranian cross-country 
runners. Turk. J. Sport Exerc. 17, 35–41 (2015).
 20. O’Connor, H., Olds, T. & Maughan, R. Physique and performance for track and field. J. Sports Sci. 25(Suppl 1), S49-60 (2007).
 21. Jung, A. P. The impact of resistance training on distance running performance. Sports Med. 33, 539–552 (2003).
 22. Blagrove, R. C., Howatson, G. & Hayes, P. R. Effects of strength training on the physiological determinants of middle- and long-
distance running performance: A systematic review. Sports Med. 48, 1117–1149 (2018).
 23. Norton, K., Olds, T., Olive, S. & Craig, N. Anthropometry and sports performance. in Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body Meas-
urement for Sports and Health Courses (eds: Kevin Norton & Tim Olds) 287–364 (University of New South Wales Press, 1996).
 24. Stachoń, A. & Pietraszewska, J. Body composition in male physical education university students in view of their physical activity 
level. Hum. Mov. 14, 205–209 (2013).
 25. Goulding, M. Somatotype—Calculation and Analysis (Sweat Technologies, 2002).
 26. Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151 (1960).
 27. Vucetic, V., Matkovic, B. & Sentija, D. Morphological differences of elite Croatian track-and-field athletes. Coll. Antropol. 32, 
863–868 (2008).
 28. Kułaga, Z. et al. Polish 2010 growth references for school-aged children and adolescents. Eur. J. Pediatr. 170, 599–609 (2011).
 29. Sedeaud, A. et al. BMI, a performance parameter for speed improvement. PLoS One 9, e90183 (2014).
 30. Fujita, S. et al. A 100-m sprint time is associated with deep trunk muscle thickness in collegiate male sprinters. Front. Sports Act. 
Living 24, 32 (2019).
 31. Tottori, N. et al. Trunk and lower limb muscularity in sprinters: What are the specific muscles for superior sprint performance?. 
BMC Res. Notes 14, 74 (2021).
 32. Weyand, P. G. & Davis, J. A. Running performance has a structural basis. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 2625–2631 (2005).
 33. Bastir, M. et al. Variation in human 3D trunk shape and its functional implications in hominin evolution. Sci. Rep. 12, 11762 (2022).
 34. Castillo, E. R. & Lieberman, D. E. Shock attenuation in the human lumbar spine during walking and running. J. Exp. Biol. 221, 
jeb177949 (2018).
 35. Copaver, K., Hertogh, C. & Hue, O. The effects of psoas major and lumbar lordosis on hip flexion and sprint performance. Res. Q. 
Exerc. Sport. 83, 160–167 (2012).
 36. Ueno, H. et al. The potential relationship between leg bone length and running performance in well-trained endurance runners. 
J. Hum. Kinet. 70, 165–172 (2019).
10
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
 37. Majumdar, A. S. & Robergs, R. A. The science of speed: Determinants of performance in the 100 m sprint. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach 
6, 479–493 (2011).
 38. Kriswanto, E. S. et al. Effect of leg length on running speed of sports and health sciences students in Indonesia: A meta-analysis 
study. JPES 21, 2697–2705 (2021).
 39. Mooses, M. et al. Anthropometric and physiological determinants of running performance in middle-and long-distance runners. 
Kinesiology 45, 154–162 (2013).
 40. Bushnell, T. & Hunter, I. Differences in technique between sprinters and distance runners at equal and maximal speeds. Sports 
Biomech. 6, 261–268 (2007).
 41. Mackala, K. Optimisation of performance through kinematic analysis of the different phases of the 100 metres. New Stud. Athl. 
22, 7–16 (2007).
 42. Mackala, K. & Mero, A. A kinematics analysis of three best 100 m performances ever. J. Hum. Kinet. 36, 149–160 (2013).
 43. Bereket, S. Effects of anthropometric parameters and stride frequency on estimation of energy cost of walking. J. Sports Med. Phys. 
Fit. 45, 152–161 (2005).
 44. Wall-Scheffler, C. M. Size and shape: Morphology’s impact on human speed and mobility. J. Anthropol. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 
2012/ 340493 (2012).
 45. Tomita, D. et al. A pilot study on a potential relationship between leg bone length and sprint performance in sprinters; Are there 
any event-related differences in 100-m and 400-m sprints?. BMC Res. Notes 13, 1–6 (2020).
 46. Black, M. I., Allen, S. J., Forrester, S. E. & Folland, J. P. The anthropometry of economical running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 52, 
762–770 (2020).
 47. Nikander, R., Sievänen, H., Uusi-Rasi, K., Heinonen, A. & Kannus, P. Loading modalities and bone structures at nonweight-bearing 
upper extremity and weight-bearing lower extremity: A pQCT study of adult female athletes. Bone 39, 886–894 (2006).
 48. Weidauer, L., Eilers, M., Binkley, T., Vukovich, M. & Specker, B. Effect of different collegiate sports on cortical bone in the tibia. J. 
Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 12, 68–73 (2012).
 49. Korhonen, M. et al. Biomechanical and skeletal muscle determinants of maximum running speed with aging. Med. Sci. Sports 
Exerc. 41, 844–856 (2009).
 50. Perez-Gomez, J. et al. Role of muscle mass on sprint performance: Gender differences?. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 102, 685–694 (2008).
 51. Abe, T. et al. Longitudinal associations between changes in body composition and changes in sprint performance in elite female 
sprinters. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 20, 100–105 (2020).
 52. Arrese, A. L. & Ostáriz, E. S. Skinfold thicknesses associated with distance running performance in highly trained runners. J. Sports 
Sci. 24, 69–76 (2006).
 53. Arrese, A. L., Badillo, J. J. G. & Ostáriz, E. S. Differences in skinfold thicknesses and fat distribution among top-class runners. 
Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 45, 512–517 (2005).
 54. Kolnes, K. J., Petersen, M. H., Lien-Iversen, T., Højlund, K. & Jensen, J. Effect of exercise training on fat loss—Energetic perspec-
tives and the role of improved adipose tissue function and body fat distribution. Front. Physiol. 12, 1634 (2021).
 55. Kershaw, E. E. & Jeffrey, S. F. Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89, 2548–2556 (2004).
 56. Allen, S. J., Black, M. I., Forrester, S. E., Handsaker, J. C. & Folland, J. P. The relationship of anthropometry and body composition 
with running economy. in 35th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports vol. 35 1080–1083 (2017).
 57. Heymsfield, S., Wang, Z., Baumgartner, R. & Ross, R. Human body composition: Advances in models and methods. Annu. Rev. 
Nutr. 17, 527–558 (1997).
 58. Talluri, T., Lietdke, R. J., Evangelisti, A., Talluri, J. & Maggia, G. Fat-free mass qualitative assessment with bioelectric impedance 
analysis (BIA). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 873, 94–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1749- 6632. 1999. tb094 54.x (1999).
 59. Aikawa, Y., Murata, M. & Omi, N. Relationship of height, body mass, muscle mass, fat mass, and the percentage of fat with athletic 
performance in male Japanese college sprinters, distance athletes, jumpers, throwers, and decathletes. J. Phys. Fit. Sports Med. 9, 
7–14 (2020).
 60. Watts, A. S., Coleman, I. & Nevill, A. The changing shape characteristics associated with success in world-class sprinters. J. Sports 
Sci. 30, 1085–1095 (2012).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Justyna Andrzejewska for support regarding data collection. Also the authors 
thank all the participants of the survey for their understanding and the time devoted and anonymous reviewers 
for their helpful comments.
Author contributions
A.B. designed and conducted the research, obtained the data, statistically analyzed the whole data set, wrote the 
paper and prepared figures, A.S. and J.P. obtained the data and reviewed the paper. All authors have read and 
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Wrocław University of Health and Sport Sciences, Poland, grant number PN/
BK/2020/08.
Competing interests 
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.B.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and 
institutional affiliations.
11
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:18222  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45064-9
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or 
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the 
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this 
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the 
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from 
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
© The Author(s) 2023

Anthropometric profiles and body composition of male runners at different distances.
Stachoń, Aleksandra,Pietraszewska, Jadwiga,Burdukiewicz, Anna