Literature DB >> 26808845

Similarities and Differences in Pacing Patterns in a 161-km and 101-km Ultra-Distance Road Race.

Philip L S Tan1, Frankie H Y Tan, Andrew N Bosch.   

Abstract

Tan, PLS, Tan, FHY, and Bosch, AN. Similarities and differences in pacing patterns in a 161-km and 101-km ultra-distance road race. J Strength Cond Res 30(8): 2145-2155, 2016-The purpose of this study was to establish and compare the pacing patterns of fast and slow finishers in a tropical ultra-marathon. Data were collected from the Craze Ultra-marathon held on the 22nd and 21st of September in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Finishers of the 161-km (N = 47) and 101-km (N = 120) categories of the race were divided into thirds (groups A-C) by merit of finishing time. Altogether, 17 and 11 split times were recorded for the 161-km and 101-km finishers, respectively, and used to calculate the mean running speed for each distance segment. Running speed for the first segment was normalized to 100, with all subsequent splits adjusted accordingly. Running speed during the last 5 km was calculated against the mean race pace to establish the existence of an end spurt. A reverse J-shaped pacing profile was demonstrated in all groups for both distance categories and only 38% of the finishers executed an end spurt. In the 101-km category, in comparison with groups B and C, group A maintained a significantly more even pace (p = 0.013 and 0.001, respectively) and completed the race at a significantly higher percent of initial starting speed (p = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Descriptive data also revealed that the top 5 finishers displayed a "herd-behavior" by staying close to the lead runner in the initial portion of the race. These findings demonstrate that to achieve a more even pace, recreational ultra-runners should adopt a patient sustainable starting speed, with less competitive runners setting realistic performance goals whereas competitive runners with a specific time goal to consider running in packs of similar pace.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26808845     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001326

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  8 in total

Review 1.  Pacing Decision Making in Sport and the Effects of Interpersonal Competition: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Marco J Konings; Florentina J Hettinga
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  Physiology and Pathophysiology in Ultra-Marathon Running.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Pantelis T Nikolaidis
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.566

3.  Pacing in a 94-year-old runner during a 6-hour run.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Pantelis T Nikolaidis
Journal:  Open Access J Sports Med       Date:  2018-02-05

4.  The Effects of Sex, Age and Performance Level on Pacing in Ultra-Marathon Runners in the 'Spartathlon'.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Ivan Cuk; Elias Villiger; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Katja Weiss; Volker Scheer; Mabliny Thuany
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-05-13

5.  Stroking Rates of Open Water Swimmers during the 2019 FINA World Swimming Championships.

Authors:  Luis Rodríguez; Santiago Veiga; Iker García; José M González-Ravé
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Effect of age and performance on pacing of marathon runners.

Authors:  Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis; Beat Knechtle
Journal:  Open Access J Sports Med       Date:  2017-08-21

7.  Pacing of an Untrained 17-Year-Old Teenager in a Marathon Attempt.

Authors:  Beat Knechtle; Celina Knechtle; Thomas Rosemann; Pantelis T Nikolaidis
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2018-06-01

8.  To Be a Champion of the 24-h Ultramarathon Race. If Not the Heart ... Mosaic Theory?

Authors:  Robert Gajda; Aleksandra Samełko; Miłosz Czuba; Agnieszka Piotrowska-Nowak; Katarzyna Tońska; Cezary Żekanowski; Anna Klisiewicz; Wojciech Drygas; Anita Gębska-Kuczerowska; Jacek Gajda; Beat Knechtle; Jakub Grzegorz Adamczyk
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.390

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.