Longer Disciplined Tapers Improve Marathon Performance for Recreational Runners.

Barry Smyth,Aonghus Lawlor

doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.735220

Barry Smyth, Aonghus Lawlor

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.735220

Copy DOI

Abstract

For marathoners the taper refers to a period of reduced training load in the weeks before race-day. It helps runners to recover from the stresses of weeks of high-volume, high-intensity training to enhance race-day performance. The aim of this study was to analyse the taper strategies of recreational runners to determine whether particular forms of taper were more or less favorable to race-day performance.Methods: We analyzed the training activities of more than 158,000 recreational marathon runners to define tapers based on a decrease in training volume (weekly distance). We identified different types of taper based on a combination of duration (1–4 weeks of decreasing training) and discipline (strict tapers progressively decrease training in the weeks before the marathon, relaxed tapers do not) and we grouped runners based on their taper type to determine the popularity of different types of taper and their associated performance characteristics.Results: Kruskal-Wallis tests (H(7)≥ 521.11, p < 0.001), followed by posthoc Dunns tests with a Bonferroni correction, confirmed that strict tapers were associated with better marathon performance than relaxed tapers (p < 0.001) and that longer tapers of up to 3 weeks were associated with better performance than shorter tapers (p < 0.001). Results indicated that strict 3-week tapers were associated with superior marathon finish-time benefits (a median finish-time saving of 5 min 32.4 s or 2.6%) compared with a minimal taper (p < 0.001). We further found that female runners were associated with greater finish-time benefits than men, for a given taper type ( ≤ 3-weeks in duration), based on Mann Whitney U tests of significance with p < 0.001.Conclusion: The findings of this study for recreational runners are consistent with related studies on highly-trained athletes, where disciplined tapers were associated with comparable performance benefits. The findings also highlight how most recreational runners (64%) adopt less disciplined (2-week and 3-week) tapers and suggest that shifting to a more disciplined taper strategy could improve performance relative to the benefits of a less disciplined taper.

Highlights

The taper refers to a gradual reduction in training load for athletes in the days or weeks before a competitive event (Houmard, 1991; Banister et al, 1999; Mujika and Padilla, 2003; Wilson and Wilson, 2008; Mujika, 2009; Le Meur et al, 2012)
The main aim of this work is to analyze tapering patterns, and their performance effects, among 158,117 recreational runners, using activity data collected by the popular Strava training app, and highlighting the analysis opportunity that exists for large-scale, real-world data collected by apps such as Strava1, RunKeeper2, and MapMyRun3
When we use the finish-time efficiency (FTE) of the relaxed 1-week taper as a baseline efficiency level to estimate a runner’s expected finishtime—as if they had observed a relaxed 1-week taper— we find longer and more strict tapers to offer significant finish-time benefits relative to this expected time

Summary

Introduction

The taper refers to a gradual reduction in training load for athletes in the days or weeks before a competitive event (Houmard, 1991; Banister et al, 1999; Mujika and Padilla, 2003; Wilson and Wilson, 2008; Mujika, 2009; Le Meur et al, 2012). Great care is required to strike the right balance between maximizing performance, overtraining (Morgan et al, 1987; Berger et al, 1999; Halson and Jeukendrup, 2004) and detraining (Fleck, 1994; Mujika and Padilla, 2000). Short tapers may not be sufficient to elicit the necessary recovery response that is required for optimal performance (Morgan et al, 1987), whereas tapers that are too long, or where training load is reduced by too much or too quickly, could lead to a de-training effect (Houmard et al, 1989; Mujika and Padilla, 2000), which could compromise performance

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion