Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 24Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 60 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Comparison of Muscle Function, Bone Mineral Density and Body Composition of Early Starting and Later Starting Older Masters Athletes

Open access
Piasecki, Jessica, Ireland, Alex, Piasecki, Mathew, Deere, Kevin, Hannam, Kimberley, Tobias, Jonathan, McPhee, Jamie S.·2019·Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract

Masters endurance runners can epitomize healthy aging; being reflective of the physiological processes of aging without the compounded effects of inactivity. The primary aim of the present study was to determine, using cross-sectional data, whether individuals taking up training after the age of 50 years can achieve the same level of athletic performance and musculoskeletal characteristics in their older age as those who trained all of their adult lives. A total of 150 master endurance runners [age 68 (5) years; 111 male, 39 female] were divided into early starters (training all of their adulthood) and late starters (started training after age 50 years). A comparative non-athletic group of 59 healthy older adults [age 73 (4) years; 30 female, 29 male] were additionally included for analysis. Training intensity, age-graded performance (AGP) and musculoskeletal assessments were performed. Results showed that there was no difference between athlete groups for training intensity or age-graded performance, despite the 30-year difference in training history. Body fat percentage and leg lean mass did not differ between athlete groups, but were 17% lower and 12% greater, respectively, in athlete groups compared with controls. Power normalized to body mass did not differ between any groups. Spine BMD was lower in late starters than controls, while early starters did not differ from late starters or controls. Hip BMD did not differ between any of the groups. These findings show that the Masters athletes we studied that started intense endurance running after the age of 50 years had lower body fat and higher leg lean mass compared to non-athletes. Body composition and athletic performance of the late starters was very similar to those who trained all of their adult lives.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In a cross-sectional comparison, older Masters endurance runners who started intense training after age 50 had similar age-graded performance, training impacts, body fat percentage, and leg lean mass to those who trained throughout adulthood. Both athlete groups had lower body fat and greater leg lean mass than non-athletic controls, but late starters had lower spine BMD than controls.

Key findings

  • Among 150 Masters endurance runners [age 68 (5) years; 111 male, 39 female], early starters had about 30 more training years than late starters (e.g., men: 52.3 ± 6.0 vs. 18.4 ± 5.1 years; p < 0.0005), but age-graded performance did not differ (p = 0.294), and low-, medium-, and high-impact accelerometry counts did not differ (p = 0.089, 0.799, and 0.352).
  • Body fat percentage was approximately 17% lower and leg lean mass approximately 12% greater in both athlete groups than controls (p < 0.01 and p < 0.003, respectively), with no difference between early and late starters; appendicular lean mass was greater in late starters than controls (p = 0.001).
  • Spine BMD was lower in late starters than controls (p = 0.001), while early starters did not differ from late starters or controls; hip BMD did not differ between any groups.
  • Maximal grip strength and relative vertical jump power did not differ between groups; absolute vertical jump power was greater in controls than late starters (p = 0.006), with no difference between athlete groups.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional study of 150 Masters endurance runners from the VIBE study (aged ≥59 years, regional endurance competition in past 12 months, free from serious injury >2 years), classified by questionnaire as early starters (trained throughout adulthood; 48 male/6 female) or late starters (started after age 50; 63 male/33 female), plus 59 healthy older controls from MYOAGE (29 male/30 female); total 209 participants.
  • Measurements included DXA whole-body, hip, and spine scans for body composition and BMD; grip strength; countermovement vertical jump power; 7-day hip accelerometry in athletes; and age-graded performance from best ranked performance in the last 2 years.
  • ANCOVA compared early starters, late starters, and controls with age and sex as covariates, followed by Fisher’s Least Significant Difference pairwise comparisons; significance was p < 0.05, with partial eta squared reported for effect sizes.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: group assignment relied on self-reports and the cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions; sample size was powered to detect small differences but very small early-vs-late differences may have been missed; controls’ data were collected approximately 5 years apart and controls did not complete the same physical activity assessments; athlete recruitment based on performance over the previous 2 years may miss fluctuations from injury or illness; Masters athletes may be better educated, of higher socioeconomic status, and have fewer diseases than the general population; energy intake and vitamin D/calcium status were not measured.
  • Evident in the text: the athlete sample was predominantly male (111/150), and the early-starter female subgroup was very small (n = 6), limiting sex-specific conclusions; accelerometry was collected only in athletes, so activity comparisons with controls are unavailable.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphys.2019.01050

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

40 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Figures

FIGURE 1 Body fat percentage and leg lean mass. Data shown as mean ± SD and individual data points also displayed as open circles. (A) Body fat expressed as a percentage of total body mass, significance assessed when adjusting for Gender [F(1,242) = 44.2, p < 0.01] and age [F(1,242) = 2.07, p = 0.15]. (B) Leg lean mass significance assessed when adjusting for Gender [F(1,242) = 179, p < 0.01] and age [F(1,242) = 8.40, p < 0.01]. ES, Early Starter; LS, Late Starter; C, Controls. ∗∗∗ Significantly different to controls at p < 0.01 and ∗ at p < 0.05.
FIGURE 1 Body fat percentage and leg lean mass. Data shown as mean ± SD and individual data points also displayed as open circles. (A) Body fat expressed as a percentage of total body mass, significance assessed when adjusting for Gender [F(1,242) = 44.2, p < 0.01] and age [F(1,242) = 2.07, p = 0.15]. (B) Leg lean mass significance assessed when adjusting for Gender [F(1,242) = 179, p < 0.01] and age [F(1,242) = 8.40, p < 0.01]. ES, Early Starter; LS, Late Starter; C, Controls. ∗∗∗ Significantly different to controls at p < 0.01 and ∗ at p < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 30 Not checked · 60 Own results and interpretations

37 more claims

Create a free account to see all 90 claims and to verify the 42 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27

Create a free account to see these claims.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 242) = 0.77reported p = .412 · recomputed p = .381

    “F(1,242) = 0.77, p = .412”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 236) = 6.45reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(1,236) = 6.45, p = .014”

  • ConsistentF(1, 184) = 0.007reported p = .934 · recomputed p = .933

    “F(1,184) = 0.007, p = .934”

  • ConsistentF(1, 184) = 286reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,184) = 286, p < .0005”

  • ConsistentF(2, 242) = 15.8reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,242) = 15.8, p < .0005”

5 of 40 · the rest aren’t loaded

35 more recomputed tests

Create a free account to see every test the Stats check recomputed.

See all tests — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 24

Metadata

Authors
Piasecki, J., Ireland, A., Piasecki, M., Deere, K., Hannam, K., Tobias, J., & McPhee, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
McPhee, Jamie S.
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Published
2019-08-27
Volume
10
Pages
1050-1050
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2966821848
Cited by
24
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Frontiers in Physiology (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (223576)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K024973/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
masters athletes, endurance running, healthy aging, muscle function, bone mineral density, body composition, fat mass, leg lean mass, exercise intensity, output power, older adults

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.