Abstract
This paper aims to test the hypothesis whereby freely chosen running pace is less effective than pace controlled by a steady-state physiological variable. Methods Eight runners performed four maximum-effort 3000 m time trials on a running track. The first time trial (TT1) was freely paced. In the following 3000 m time trials, the pace was controlled so that the average speed (TT2), average O2 (TT3) or average HR (TT4) recorded in TT1 was maintained throughout the time trial. Results: Physiologically controlled pace was associated with a faster time (mean ± standard deviation: 740 ± 34 s for TT3 and 748 ± 33 s for TT4, vs. 854 ± 53 s for TT1; p < 0.01), a lower oxygen cost of running (200 ± 5 and 220 ± 3 vs. 310 ± 5 mLO2·kg−1·km−1, respectively; p < 0.02), a lower cardiac cost (0.69 ± 0.08 and 0.69 ± 0.04 vs. 0.86 ± 0.09 beat·m−1, respectively; p < 0.01), and a more positively skewed speed distribution (skewness: 1.7 ± 0.9 and 1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Physiologically controlled pace (at the average O2 or HR recorded in a freely paced run) was associated with a faster time, a more favorable speed distribution and lower levels of physiological strain, relative to freely chosen pace. This finding suggests that non-elite runners do not spontaneously choose the best pace strategy.
Highlights
The completion time was significantly lower in TT3 and TT4 than in the freely paced TT1 (p = 0.009 and p = 0.002, respectively)
The researchers suggested that the Cooper test penalizes less experienced runners because the alternation of running and walking was possible, and the choice of pace was left to the runner [15]
We previously reported that the coefficient of variation for speed ranged from 1% to 5% in 3000 to 10,000 m events for competitive runners [25], 3% in marathons [26], and 5.4% for the top ten finishers in a 100 km ultramarathon [27]
Summary
Athletes achieve the best performances by varying their pace [1]. Despite the obvious importance of pacing and the impact of pacing mistakes on athletic performance, there have been few systematic studies of how various pacing strategies influence the outcome of competitive results [2]. With a view to optimizing athletic performance, various self-pacing strategies have been used to vary the running speed and minimize the overall time between the start and the finish. In order to avoid becoming over-fatigued before reaching the finishing line, the athlete can choose to spontaneously modulate his/her pace during the race [3]. Over the last 20 years, researchers have hypothesized that human athletes regulate their effort during competitive events according to when they expect the exercise bout to end [4,5,6].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
