
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796
PONE-D-24-05017
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Recreation
Sports
Social Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Recreation
Sports
Biology and Life Sciences
Sports Science
Sports
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Biological Locomotion
Running
Biology and Life Sciences
Biochemistry
Bioenergetics
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Biological Locomotion
Swimming
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Human Performance
Social Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Human Performance
Biology and Life Sciences
Biochemistry
Metabolism
Energy Metabolism
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Physiological Processes
Energy Metabolism
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
Computer and Information Sciences
Network Analysis
Exploring the dynamics of sports records evolution through the gembris prediction model and network relevance analysis
Exploring the dynamics of sports records evolution
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8797-6318
Tang Lu Conceptualization Data curation Software Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2
Yang Mingliang Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Resources Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 *
1 Department of Physical Education, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan, China
2 Institute of aviation sports, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan, China
Sinha Mukesh Kumar Editor
Manipal Academy of Higher Education, INDIA
Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

* E-mail: yml9999@126.com
19 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03077966 2 2024
11 7 2024
© 2024 Tang, Yang
2024
Tang, Yang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Sports records hold valuable insights into human physiological limits. However, presently, there is a lack of integration and evolutionary patterns in the recorded information across various sports.

Methods

We selected sports records from 1992 to 2018, covering 24 events in men’s track, field, and swimming. The Gembris prediction model calculated performance randomness, and Pearson correlation analysis assessed network relevance between projects. Quantitative study of model parameters revealed the impact of various world records’ change range, predicted value, and network correlation on evolutionary patterns.

Results

1) The evolution range indicates that swimming events generally have a larger annual world record variation than track and field events; 2) Gembris’s predictions show that sprint, marathon, and swimming records outperform their predicted values annually; 3) Network relevance analysis reveals highly significant correlations between all swimming events and sprints, as well as significant correlations between marathon and all swimming events.

Conclusion

Sports record evolution is closely linked not only to specific sports technology but also to energy expenditure. Strengthening basic physical training is recommended to enhance sports performance.

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University PHD2023-02 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8797-6318
Tang Lu Aviation Sports Research Institute project of Civil Aviation Flight University of China 24CAFUC09034 Yang Mingliang This work was supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (PHD2023-02 to LT); Aviation Sports Research Institute project of Civil Aviation Flight University of China (24CAFUC09034 to MY). There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. Data AvailabilityThe data that was used during this study was already publicly available. The sports records were obtained from from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) (https://worldathletics.org/records/toplists) and the International Swimming Federation (Fédération Internationale de Natation Association, FINA) (https://www.worldaquatics.com/swimming/rankings).
Data Availability

The data that was used during this study was already publicly available. The sports records were obtained from from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) (https://worldathletics.org/records/toplists) and the International Swimming Federation (Fédération Internationale de Natation Association, FINA) (https://www.worldaquatics.com/swimming/rankings).
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

In competitive sports, achieving a new world record is always gratifying. However, it’s not just about representing the pinnacle of a specific sports specialty, it’s crucial to assess the valuable information and patterns behind the record [1]. Sports records, over time, follow a monotonic function on a time scale and spatial function [2]. Hence, every sports records is bound to be surpassed eventually. Factors like gender, age, genetics, participant numbers, geopolitics, doping, technological prowess, and athletic training contribute to creating sports records, with athletic training playing a decisive role [1, 2].

Sports training serves as a synthesis of research outcomes from diverse disciplines to enhance athletic performance and applies the laws and characteristics of one sport to training in others. It advances sports science by integrating insights from mathematics, physics, computational science, engineering, anatomy, and physiology. Simultaneously, it extrapolates laws and features from training theories like item clusters, integration, parallelism, crossover, and multimodality, guiding training practices [3–6], and offering a theoretical foundation for selecting athletes across sports.

The essence of sports lies in the amalgamation of external movements and internal bodily functions. The variability in function among different sports is a crucial factor influencing the existence of laws between them. Sports records, epitomizing the pinnacle of human body movement function for a given year, not only reflect the highest sports training standards but also encapsulate the features and laws governing diverse disciplines. Consequently, this study aims to correlate and analyze 24 sports records from 1992 to 2018, exploring the interaction laws between world records and the evolving human function in each sport. This endeavor enriches quantitative research in sports training science and exercise physiology.

Methods

Data source

Data were sourced from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) (www.worldathletics.org) and the International Swimming Federation (Fédération Internationale de Natation Association, FINA) (www.fina.org). Considering the prevalent use of banned substances to enhance athletic performance in the 1970s and 1980s, this study selected the annual world records of 648 male athletes from 1992 to 2018 in track (100m sprint, 200m sprint, 400m running, 800m running, 3000m running, 10,000m running, 400m hurdles, and marathon), field (high jump, long jump, and triple jump), and swimming (100m backstroke, 200m backstroke, 100m breaststroke, 200m breaststroke, 100m butterfly, 200m butterfly, 50m freestyle, 100m freestyle, 200m freestyle, 400m freestyle, 800m freestyle, 200m medley, and 400m medley). These events span competitions like the Olympic Games, the World Championships in Athletics, and the World Swimming Championships.

Statistical analysis

Gembris predictive model

Correlations between data fluctuations would be meaningless if random factors caused fluctuations in sports world records. To explore the presence of randomness in these fluctuations, the impact of random factors on world record fluctuations was evaluated using Gembris predictive statistical model [1, 7]. The annual world record fluctuation is presumed to be a smooth stochastic process devoid of systematic progression and adheres to a Gaussian distribution (mean μ and standard deviation σ). The anticipated value of the record over the next N years can be estimated as: xmax=μ+σ(a0+a1lnln(N))2 (1)

where the optimal coefficients are a0 = 0.818, a1 = 0.574, and a2 = 0.349. These coefficients, along with σ = 1, ensure that the error in approximating xmax remains below 0.06 within a specified interval. Similarly, the standard deviation of the approximation of xmax is: σE=σ(b0+b1lnlnN+b2(lnlnN))2 (2)

The optimal parameters, b0 = 0.8023, b1 = -0.2751, and b2 = 0.0020, result in an approximation error of under 0.15 percent. This paper utilizes data from 1992–2001 to project trends in world records from 1992–2018, and the estimated fluctuations are subsequently compared with actual sports performance results.

Network relevance

The records were documented as relative fluctuations by taking the 1992 world records as the baseline for each subsequent year’s records. The division of the world records of other years by the baseline determined the relative fluctuations. Using SPSS 22.0 software (IBM, NY, USA), we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficients for the fluctuation patterns of each world record, setting the significance level for statistical analysis at P = 0.05. The time series of relative fluctuation (TSRF) for each world record x can be expressed as follows: TSRFxj=xjxi,(i=1992,j=1993,1994,…,2018) (3)

The number of interrelationships between any two TSRFs reflects the temporal correlation of the evolution of world records. Given that speed events and jumping events set world records based on the minimum and maximum values, respectively, this paper transforms the world records of jumping events inversely to facilitate a direct comparison with the former. The correlation coefficient (R) is employed to assess the strength of correlation in the fluctuation of world records between events. A value of R closer to 1 indicates a stronger positive correlation.

Results

Evolution of sports records

To avoid errors caused by random fluctuations in data, we selected the best world records for each year from 1992 to 2005 to compare with the records for each year from 2005 to 2018. Fig 1 provides a general overview, indicating that swimming events generally exhibit a greater magnitude of change than track and field events. Notably, the 200m backstroke world record saw a remarkable 10% improvement in 2018 compared to 1992. Significance is the marathon, the only track and field event surpassing certain swimming events in improvement over the years, with a direct 5% enhancement in 2018 over the 1992 record. The marathon ranks 7th among all events in the spans of 1992–2002 and 2018–2008. Except for the marathon, other track and field events experienced a substantial decrease in change magnitude compared to swimming records. Specifically, the 400m freestyle, with the smallest increase in 2018 compared to 1992, was 3.46 times higher than the 100m sprint, which had the largest increase in track and field events. Furthermore, high jump, long jump, 400m hurdles, 200m running, 400m running, 800m running, 3,000m running, and 10,000m running all exhibited negative growth in all year span comparisons (Fig 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.g001 Fig 1 Magnitude of change in sports records.

White columns show growth in sports records; black columns show negative growth in sports records.

Prediction of sports records

The prediction results indicate that except for middle and long-distance running, track and field events fall within the σE interval (Fig 2). However, all statistics related to sprinting, marathon, and swimming events deviate from the σE interval. Fig 2e and 2f reveal that the stochastic variation process of the world records for 400m and 3000m running aligns with the actual performance evolution. In contrast, the 100m sprint, 200m sprint, 50m freestyle, and marathon events exhibit significant deviations (Fig 2a and 2d).

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.g002 Fig 2 Gembris predicts the evolution of sports records between 2002–2018.

(a) 100m sprint; (b) 200m sprint; (c) 50m freestyle; (d) marathon; (e) 400m running; (f) 3000m running. The black solid line and the red solid line indicate the theoretical estimate and the actual value, respectively, and the dashed line indicates the data change σE interval.

Network correlations in the evolution of sports records

The correlation analysis results (Fig 3a) reveal a high positive correlation (R>0.7, P<0.05) among the TSRFs of all swimming events. Additionally, a high positive correlation (R>0.7, P<0.05) is observed between the 100m and 200m sprint events. Furthermore, there exists a high or moderate positive correlation between the marathon and all swimming events (R = 0.4 ~ 1.0, P<0.05). A moderate positive correlation is found between the 100m sprint and all swimming events (R = 0.4 ~ 0.7, P<0.05). Conversely, a moderate negative correlation is identified between the 3000m middle and long-distance running and all swimming events (R = -0.4 ~ -0.7, P<0.05). Notably, the network correlation analysis (Fig 3b) indicates a high positive correlation (R>0.7, P<0.05) and network connectivity between the TSRF of the annual world record in the marathon and all swimming events.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.g003 Fig 3 Network relevance of sports records.

(a) Matrix of correlation coefficients; (b) Connected network of 24 sports records evolved, two TSRFs with correlation coefficients greater than 0.7 are defined as connected. (1, 100m sprint; 2, 200m sprint; 3, 400m running; 4, 800m running; 5, 3000m running; 6, 10,000m running; 7, marathon; 8, 100m backstroke; 9, 200m backstroke; 10, 100m breaststroke; 11, 200m breaststroke; 12, 100m butterfly; 13, 200m butterfly; 14, 50m freestyle; 15. 100m freestyle; 16, 200m freestyle; 17, 400m freestyle; 18, 800m freestyle; 19, 200m medley; 20, 400m medley; 21, 400m hurdles; 22, long jump; 23, high jump; 24, triple jump).

Discussion

Predictive analyses of sports world records from 1992 to 2018 can be conducted using Gembris algorithmic model [1, 7]. The stochastic variation process of 400m and 3000m middle-distance running world records aligns well with the actual performance evolution, indicating a small approximation error and a superior fit of the prediction model for these two sports. This suggests no significant breakthrough in their performance over the 27 years, consistent with the generally low growth rate in track events in Result 3.1. Annual world records in sprinting, marathon, and swimming surpass predicted values, implying a substantial performance increase and systematic improvement from 1992 to 2018. This aligns with the notable growth rate change in sprinting, marathon, and swimming performance.

In the correlation analysis, a high positive correlation emerged among the TSRFs of all swimming events, suggesting no correlation between strokes (backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, and freestyle) and event distances (sprints, intermediate, and long distances). This absence of a clear relationship allows for the emergence of "super athletes" like Michael Phelps (USA), Ian James Thorpe (Australia), and Sun Yang (China), who set new world records across various strokes and distances. Notably, the 100m and 200m sprints in track events exhibit a high positive correlation in TSRFs, exemplified by Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt, holding world records in both (as of October 2023). Intriguingly, the marathon shows a similar strong positive correlation with all swimming events [8], and others, indicating a fractal relationship between time and events in top runners and swimmers’ athletic performance.

Sports records embody the human pursuit of optimal performance, a continual refinement of behavior with both explicit and implicit functions in each activity. Poehlman and Dvorak (9)utilizing the double-labelled water method to measure energy expenditure, revealed that activity energy expenditure (AEE) constitutes 15–35% of total energy expenditure (TEE) per day, contrasting with the dominant 60–75% of TEE attributed to resting energy expenditure (REE), leaving approximately 10% for feeding activity (Fig 4a). Enhancing the optimal exercise level primarily involves elevating AEE, markedly reducing the risk of all-cause mortality. A cohort study on over 2 million individuals found a positive association between higher AEE levels, increased activity skills, and reduced mortality risk [10]. Higher AEE levels were also linked to modulated rhythmic gene expression, manifesting as decreased body mass and increased maximal oxygen uptake [11]. Another avenue for intensifying activity is the reduction of REE. Studies indicate significant post-training reductions in REE after 40 weeks [12] and during 30 weeks of weight loss training [13]. Athletes commonly exhibit a lower resting heart rate, known as heart rate reserve or cardiac reserve function, contrasting with the general population. Therefore, the objective of exercise training may involve augmenting overall functional performance by increasing active energy expenditure and subsequently decreasing resting energy expenditure.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.g004 Fig 4 Correlation between sports events and energy expenditure.

(a) The total daily energy expenditure (TEE) and its proportions of active energy expenditure (AEE), resting energy expenditure (REE) and Feeding, the sum of each type of active energy expenditure (AEEi) constitutes AEE, the sum of each type of resting energy expenditure (REEi) and the basal energy expenditure to maintain the body (REE0) constitutes REE. Thus, TEE = AEE+ REE+ Feeding [9]. (b) According to the normal function-specific signal transduction pathway (NSP) [16] diagram of energy expenditure of marathon adapted, the red line is the energy expenditure of marathon (AEEi) and the blue line is the resting energy expenditure of swimming or other sports (REEi). (c) AEE and REE diagrams of different sports events. (d) Subject training and fitness training improve the level of sports performance through the relationship between AEE and REE.

This paper marks the inaugural identification of a robust connection between the evolution of world records in the marathon and all swimming events. This seemingly counterintuitive revelation necessitates revisiting Aristotle’s primary principle of nature [14]. The foundational nature of exercise encompasses both external action and internal energy expenditure. Despite the marked distinctions in movement and energy expenditure between marathon and swimming, a profound interconnection emerges when scrutinized through the lens of activity and resting energy expenditure, as delineated in the preceding section. In elite marathon runners, the marathon assumes a paramount role in all activities. When engaged in marathon running, the associated activity energy expenditure (AEE) substantially rises, concurrently suppressing swimming’s resting energy expenditure (REE) linked with other sports. This phenomenon aligns with the normal function-specific signal transduction pathway (NSP) effect—a negative feedback mechanism. This mechanism ensures that the specific exercise’s function inhibits the activation of alternative signal transduction pathways in target tissue cells [15, 16]. Marathon-related target tissue cells, through cytokines or exosomes, activate the marathon NSP in a widespread manner. This strategically conserves energy expenditure, facilitating a more efficient marathon activity by suppressing swimming or analogous functions (Fig 4b).

In the realm of sports, variations in energy expenditure directly impact the interconnection between athletic specialties. Fig 4c illustrates the correlation between energy expenditure in different sports [17, 18]. When subjected to identical conditions, swimming events exhibit comparatively higher activity energy expenditure (AEE) levels due to the necessity of overcoming water resistance. Conversely, cycling or skating events demonstrate relatively lower AEE levels by utilizing tools to hasten movement. Swimming, on the other hand, boasts the lowest resting energy expenditure (REE) level, with running, walking, skating, and riding showcasing descending resting metabolic levels. Specialized training aims to elevate the AEE level of a specific event and diminish the non-specialized training REE level. Essentially, reducing REE levels in non-specific training compensates for the AEE levels in specific training. Therefore, alongside specialized training, reinforcing and supplementing non-specific training [4–6]. Furthermore, physical fitness represents the fundamental athletic prowess of the human body, encompassing strength, speed, endurance, coordination, flexibility, sensitivity, and other athletic qualities. It is a pivotal component of athletes’ competitive capabilities. Physical fitness training predominantly involves aerobic training, anaerobic training, and muscle strength training to enhance AEE levels across different abilities. Similarly, while augmenting the AEE level of a specific athletic ability, it concurrently diminishes the REE level of other athletic abilities. This approach ultimately serves the purpose of enhancing sports performance and athletic achievements (Fig 4d). In conclusion, alongside advancing the AEE level of specialization and physical abilities, it is imperative to consider the AEE level of non-specialized sports and diverse physical training. Ultimately, reducing the corresponding REE level broadens the scope of energy expenditure compensation, ensuring the full realization of sports performance.

The study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, our results come from group data and do not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term sports performance of specific athletes. Additionally, our model encounters challenges stemming from non-physiological factors such as environmental conditions, participation in the sport, and doping [19]. Particularly noteworthy is the trend of doping practices becoming more covert and sophisticated, which could potentially impact the progression of sports records in manners that current statistical models may fail to accurately capture [20]. Finally, The study’s primary focus on male sports records aimed to delve deeply into the evolution of sports records within specific gender groups. This targeted approach not only minimized the influence of confounding variables but also facilitated a more precise understanding of the mechanisms underlying male sports record evolution. However, acknowledging gender disparities is crucial for ensuring the comprehensive applicability of our findings. For future investigations, we advocate for similar in-depth analyses of female athletes’ sports records to enrich insight into gender-specific sports performance dynamics within specific contexts. Such comparative studies would contribute significantly to our understanding of how gender influences athletic performance under varying conditions. In addition, future research should include longitudinal studies in other sports or across longer periods, this would provide valuable insights for coaches to design more targeted training programs and interventions to optimize sports performance.

Conclusion

This paper quantitatively analyzes the evolution of annual world records in 24 track and field and swimming events from 1992 to 2018. Specifically, swimming records have outpaced those in field and track events, with all field events showing negative growth. Correlation analyses reveal strong connections not only between swimming and sprint events but also between marathons and all swimming events. Additionally, the predictive model analysis confirms that these high correlations between events are non-random. Lastly, the paper explores the interaction pattern of the annual world records’ evolution from the perspective of energy expenditure. This perspective elevates active energy expenditure during high-quality performance in a specific sport (specialized or physical training). Simultaneously, it considers the active energy expenditure in non-specialized sports and diversified physical training, significantly reducing the corresponding resting energy expenditure. This broadens the space for energy expenditure compensation, providing an optimal physiological basis for full performance and enhancement.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.r001
Decision Letter 0
Sinha Mukesh Kumar Academic Editor
© 2024 Mukesh Kumar Sinha
2024
Mukesh Kumar Sinha
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
12 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-05017Exploring the Dynamics of Sports Records Evolution through the Gembris Prediction Model and Network Relevance AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mukesh Kumar Sinha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University [No. PHD2023-02]; Aviation Sports Research Institute project of CAFUC [No. JG2022-34-02]."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Dr. Mingliang Yang.

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 4, to which you refer in your text on page 5. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1、Consider analyzing or at least discussing why women's records were not included. This could provide a more holistic view of sports evolution.

2、Explicitly state any limitations of your methodology or data selection to provide context for your findings.

3、 Offering suggestions for future research, possibly including other sports or longitudinal studies spanning longer periods, could be valuable.

The manuscript is well-written, providing valuable insights into the evolution of sports records. The use of the Gembris prediction model and network relevance analysis is innovative and appropriately applied. With minor improvements, especially regarding the inclusion of limitations and potentially broadening the scope to include women's records, this paper could make a significant contribution to the field of sports science and physiology.

Reviewer #2: In the conclusion section, at the first line there is a minor correction. Where you have mentioned the duration of year from 1992 to 2008, Please correct it. Also the limitation and scope for further research can be included.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
19 Jun 2024

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

· Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestion! Please find our itemized responses in below and our revisions in the re-submitted files (Revised Manuscript with Track Changes). Thanks again!

Editor #

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University [No. PHD2023-02]; Aviation Sports Research Institute project of CAFUC [No. JG2022-34-02]."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Dr. Mingliang Yang.

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 4, to which you refer in your text on page 5. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

The author's answer:

1.Thank you for your comment! Our revised manuscript conform to PLOS ONE style requirements, including file naming requirements.

2.Line 323-328. We have re-examined the Grant Information and Financial Disclosures and confirmed the correct grant numbers: This research was funded by a Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University Awarded to LT with grant number PHD2023-02 and a Aviation Sports Research Institute project of Civil Aviation Flight University of China Awarded to ML with grant number 24CAFUC09034.

3.Line 326-328. We have added a statement of the role that funders play in research: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

4.Line 341-345. We added a data availability statement: The data that was used during this study was already publicly available. The sports records were obtained from from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) (www.worldathletics.org) and the International Swimming Federation (Fédération Internationale de Natation Association, FINA) (www.fina.org).

5.Line 1-2. We added the ORCID iD of the first and corresponding authors:

Lu Tang, ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8797-6318

Mingliang Yang, ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1323-3763

6.We have updated the submission system data of corresponding author Mingliang Yang.

7.Line 217-226. Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We apologize for the mis-information in the last version. We have added Figure 4 to the revised draft.

8.Line 273-327. We have referred to the PLOS ONE style of referencing as well as checking the relevant listings to ensure they are complete and correct.

Reviewer 1#

1、Consider analyzing or at least discussing why women's records were not included. This could provide a more holistic view of sports evolution.

2、Explicitly state any limitations of your methodology or data selection to provide context for your findings.

3、 Offering suggestions for future research, possibly including other sports or longitudinal studies spanning longer periods, could be valuable.

The manuscript is well-written, providing valuable insights into the evolution of sports records. The use of the Gembris prediction model and network relevance analysis is innovative and appropriately applied. With minor improvements, especially regarding the inclusion of limitations and potentially broadening the scope to include women's records, this paper could make a significant contribution to the field of sports science and physiology.

The author's answer:

1.Line 233-241. Thank you very much for your constructive comments! We clarified the reasons in our revision of the manuscript: The study's primary focus on male sports records aimed to delve deeply into the evolution of sports records within specific gender groups. This targeted approach not only minimized the influence of confounding variables but also facilitated a more precise understanding of the mechanisms underlying male sports record evolution. However, acknowledging gender disparities is crucial for ensuring the comprehensive applicability of our findings. For future investigations, we advocate for similar in-depth analyses of female athletes' sports records to enrich insight into gender-specific sports performance dynamics within specific contexts. Such comparative studies would contribute significantly to our understanding of how gender influences athletic performance under varying conditions.

2.Line 227-243. Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which we very much appreciate.  We already added limitations in the discussion section: The study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, our results come from group data and do not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term sports performance of specific athletes. Additionally, our model encounters challenges stemming from non-physiological factors such as environmental conditions, participation in the sport, and doping[1]. Particularly noteworthy is the trend of doping practices becoming more covert and sophisticated, which could potentially impact the progression of sports records in manners that current statistical models may fail to accurately capture[2]. Finally, The study's primary focus on male sports records aimed to delve deeply into the evolution of sports records within specific gender groups. This targeted approach not only minimized the influence of confounding variables but also facilitated a more precise understanding of the mechanisms underlying male sports record evolution. However, acknowledging gender disparities is crucial for ensuring the comprehensive applicability of our findings. For future investigations, we advocate for similar in-depth analyses of female athletes' sports records to enrich insight into gender-specific sport performance dynamics within specific contexts. Such comparative studies would contribute significantly to our understanding of how gender influences athletic performance under varying conditions. In addition, future research should include longitudinal studies in other sports or across longer periods, this would provide valuable insights for coaches to design more targeted training programs and interventions to optimize sports performance.

1. Tang L, Ding W, Liu C. Scaling Invariance of Sports Sex Gap. Front Physiol. 2020;11(1654):606769. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.606769. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC33362581.

2. Giuseppe L, Giuseppe B, Favaloro EJ, Joern R, Nicola M. Updates on improvement of human athletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. Br Med Bull. 2008;87(1):7-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldn029. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC18723588.

3. Line 241-243. We thank that reviewer for their keen eye. We have added your suggestions to the revised manuscript and given it relevance for sports training: In addition, future research should include longitudinal studies in other sports or across longer periods of time, this would provide valuable insights for coaches to design more targeted training programs and interventions to optimize sports performance.

Reviewer 2#

1. In the conclusion section, at the first line there is a minor correction. Where you have mentioned the duration of year from 1992 to 2008, Please correct it. Also the limitation and scope for further research can be included.

The author's answer:

1.Line 247. Thank you for pointing out such a cheap mistake, we are very sorry for our low-level mistakes, we have changed 2008 to 2018. And we already added limitations in the discussion section at Line 227-243: The study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, our results come from group data and do not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term sports performance of specific athletes. Additionally, our model encounters challenges stemming from non-physiological factors such as environmental conditions, participation in the sport, and doping[1]. Particularly noteworthy is the trend of doping practices becoming more covert and sophisticated, which could potentially impact the progression of sports records in manners that current statistical models may fail to accurately capture[2]. Finally, The study's primary focus on male sports records aimed to delve deeply into the evolution of sports records within specific gender groups. This targeted approach not only minimized the influence of confounding variables but also facilitated a more precise understanding of the mechanisms underlying male sports record evolution. However, acknowledging gender disparities is crucial for ensuring the comprehensive applicability of our findings. For future investigations, we advocate for similar in-depth analyses of female athletes' sports records to enrich insight into gender-specific sport performance dynamics within specific contexts. Such comparative studies would contribute significantly to our understanding of how gender influences athletic performance under varying conditions. In addition, future research should include longitudinal studies in other sports or across longer periods, this would provide valuable insights for coaches to design more targeted training programs and interventions to optimize sports performance.

1. Tang L, Ding W, Liu C. Scaling Invariance of Sports Sex Gap. Front Physiol. 2020;11(1654):606769. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.606769. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC33362581.

2. Giuseppe L, Giuseppe B, Favaloro EJ, Joern R, Nicola M. Updates on improvement of human athletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. Br Med Bull. 2008;87(1):7-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldn029. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC18723588.

We sincerely appreciate your invaluable contributions to our paper. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been both encouraging and constructive, providing illumination for our future endeavors in this domain and offering valuable guidance for our ongoing research. We have addressed all the inquiries and meticulously revised our manuscript based on your thoughtful feedback. Should any further questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Once again, thank you for your time and attention, and we eagerly anticipate hearing from you soon!

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.r003
Decision Letter 1
Sinha Mukesh Kumar Academic Editor
© 2024 Mukesh Kumar Sinha
2024
Mukesh Kumar Sinha
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
11 Jul 2024

Exploring the Dynamics of Sports Records Evolution through the Gembris Prediction Model and Network Relevance Analysis

PONE-D-24-05017R1

Dear Dr. Tang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mukesh Kumar Sinha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0307796.r004
Acceptance letter
Sinha Mukesh Kumar Academic Editor
© 2024 Mukesh Kumar Sinha
2024
Mukesh Kumar Sinha
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
10 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-05017R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Gembris D , Taylor JG , Suter D . Evolution of athletic records: statistical effects versus real improvements. J Appl Stat. 2007;34 (5 ):529–45. doi: 10.1080/02664760701234850 38817921
2 Guillaume M , Helou NE , Nassif H , Berthelot G , Len S , Thibault V , et al . Success in developing regions: world records evolution through a geopolitical prism. PloS one. 2009;4 (10 ):e7573. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007573 .19862324
3 Jagim ARa , Rader Ob , Jones MTc , Oliver JMd . Physical demands of multimodal training competitions and their relationship to measures of performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31 (5 ):1212–20. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000992 .28415064
4 Sousa AC , Neiva HP , Izquierdo M , Cadore EL , Alves AR , Marinho DA . Concurrent training and detraining: brief review on the effect of exercise intensities. Int J Sports Med. 2019;40 (12 ):747–55. doi: 10.1055/a-0975-9471 .31476783
5 Moghadam BH , Bagheri R , Ashtary-Larky D , Tinsley GM , Eskandari M , Wong A , et al . The effects of concurrent training order on satellite cell-related markers, body composition, muscular and cardiorespiratory fitness in older men with sarcopenia. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24 (7 ):796–804. doi: 10.1007/s12603-020-1431-3 .32744578
6 Tuğba A , Fatma NK , Akın B , Ayşe K , Ilhan K , Kemal ST . Cross-training effect of chronic whole-body vibration exercise: a randomized controlled study. Somatosensory Mot Res. 2020;37 (2 ):51–8. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2020.1720635 .32024411
7 Gembris D , Taylor JG , Suter D . Sports statistics—Trends and random fluctuations in athletics. Nature. 2002;417 (6888 ):506-. doi: 10.1038/417506a 12037557
8 Katz L , Katz JS . Power laws and athletic performance. J Sports Sci. 1999;17 (6 ):467–76. doi: 10.1080/026404199365777 .10404495
9 Poehlman ET , Dvorak RV . Energy expenditure, energy intake, and weight loss in Alzheimer disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71 (2 ):650S–5S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.2.650s .10681274
10 Manini T , Everhart J , Patel K , Schoeller D , Colbert L , M V , et al . Daily activity energy expenditure and mortality among older adults. JAMA. 2006;296 (2 ):171–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.2.171 .16835422
11 He B , Nohara K , Park N , Park Y-S , Guillory B , Z Z. , et al . The small molecule nobiletin targets the molecular oscillator to enhance circadian rhythms and protect against metabolic syndrome. Cell Metab. 2016;23 (4 ):610–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.03.007 .27076076
12 Westerterp K , Meijer G , Janssen E , SWH M. , Ten HF . Long-term effect of physical activity on energy balance and body composition. Br J Nutr. 1992;68 (1 ):21–30. doi: 10.1079/bjn19920063 .1390606
13 Johannsen DL , Knuth ND , Huizenga R , Rood JC , Ravussin E , Hall KD . Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of fat-free mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97 (7 ):2489–96. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-1444 .22535969
14 Aristotle. The Philosophy of Aristotle. USA: Penguin US; 2011.
15 Liu T , Wu D , Zhu L , Peng P , Liu L , Yang X . Microenvironment dependent ohotobiomodulation on function-specific signal transduction pathways. Int J Photoenergy. 2014:1–8. doi: 10.1155/2014/904304
16 Liu C , Liu G , SJ H , L Z , XB Y . Quantitative biology of exercise-induced signal transduction pathways. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;977 :419–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55231-6_54 .28685473
17 Prampero PEd. The energy cost of human locomotion on land and in water. Int J Sports Med. 1986;7 (2 ):55–72. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1025736 .3519480
18 Capelli C , Pendergast DR , Termin B . Energetics of swimming at maximal speeds in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;78 (5 ):385–93. doi: 10.1007/s004210050435 .9809837
19 Tang L , Ding W , Liu C . Scaling Invariance of Sports Sex Gap. Front Physiol. 2020;11 (1654 ):606769. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.606769 .33362581
20 Giuseppe L , Giuseppe B , Favaloro EJ , Joern R , Nicola M . Updates on improvement of human athletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. Br Med Bull. 2008;87 (1 ):7–15. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldn029 .18723588
