Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes.

The purposes of this study were 1) to analyse the different pacing behaviours based on athlete's performance and 2) to determine whether significant differences in each race split and the runner's performance implied different race profiles. A total of 2295 runners, which took part in Berlin's marathon (2017), met the inclusion criteria. 4 different groups were created based on sex and performance. Men: Elite (<02:19:00 h), Top 1 (<02:30:00 h), Top 2 (<02:45:00 h) and Top 3 (<03:00:00 h); women: Elite (02:45:00 h), Top 1 (<03:00:00 h), Top 2 (<03:15:00 h), Top 3 (<03:30:00 h). With the aim of comparing the pacing between sex and performance the average speed was normalized. In men, no statistically significant changes were found between performance group and splits. A large number of significant differences between splits and groups were found amongst women: 5-10 km Top 2 vs Top 3 (P = 0.0178), 10-15 km Top1 vs Top 2 (P = 0.0211), 15-20 km Top1 vs Top 2 (P = 0.0382), 20-21.1 km Elite vs Top 2 (P = 0.0129); Elite vs Top 3 (P = 0.0020); Top1 vs Top 2 (P = 0.0233); Top 1 vs Top 3 (P = 0.0007), 25-30 km Elite vs Top 2 (P = 0.0273); Elite vs Top 3 (P = 0.0156), 30-35 km Elite vs Top 2 (P = 0.0096); Top 1 vs Top 2 (P = 0.0198); Top2 vs Top3 (P = 0.0069). In men there were little significant differences based on athletes' performance which implied a similar pacing behaviour. Women presented numerous differences based on their performance which suggested different pacing behaviours.

Introduction

The Marathon (42195 m) is one of the most participative endurance competitions [1]. With the aim of achieving the race goal it will be mandatory to train different physiological, biomechanical and psychological factors. Also, it will be necessary to establish a specific race pace (RP) which will let the runners maximize their performance through an optimal energy expenditure.

Within these physiological, biomechanical and psychological factors that influence the RP, it has been demonstrated that thermoregulation [2, 3], glycogen stores depletion [4, 5], neuromuscular fatigue [6] and the increase of the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) [7, 8], are factors that affect RP directly.

At the same time, variables such as age and runners’ training experience have been implicated in the determination of pacing behaviour [9]. Both experience and previous training degree could be decisive factors when developing a RP with little intensity variations during the whole marathon [7]. Besides, it needs to be borne in mind the necessity of continuous decision-making related to competition RP, which will respond to athlete’s momentary situation, behaviour of other runners, and environmental conditions [10-12]. Furthermore, the development of RP might be influenced by “stochastic” variables which the runner will not be able to control beforehand. Factors such as race profile [13], temperature and atmospheric humidity [3] play a key role on the race day and hence, in the athlete´s performance.

With the objective of considering all the possible variables which affect the performance (i.e. avoiding premature fatigue due to a race beginning too fast), the election of an optimal RP will be an essential component to improve performance during the race [14]. The different competitive strategies during marathon have been object of attention in several studies based on RP to stablish unique profiles [15-17]. Abiss and Laursen [13] described three main discernible profiles among athletes in endurance and ultra-endurance competitions (>4 h): “negative” characterized by starting under speed average and in the second part of the race increase the speed above the average, “positive” starting clearly beyond the average speed and in the second part of race undergo a dramatic drop in the average speed, and “even pace” which is characterized by a maintenance of steady speed throughout the race. Even though the Positive profile (PP) is the most common strategy among runners [9, 18, 19], in the last 50 years a tendency towards a Negative profile (NP) to be the main one among the best marathon runners has been noticed [20]. Similarly, Breen et al. [9] verified that the best master runners (independently of their age and sex) were characterized by a smaller variation of RP, close to the Even profile (EP).

This ability of the best runners to avoid a large speed reduction in the second part of the competition is based on a greater capacity to adapt oneself as a result of a big load of continuous training [21-23], and the ability to maintain the pace throughout the whole race [10]. Likewise, recreational runners with a largely PP [19, 24] who were able to maintain a steadier RP during a marathon [7, 25] reported higher training volume compared to those with the same training frequency. Therefore, more than the marathon level itself, it is possible that the training volume and runners’ former training experience may be more important in determining to develop a negative or EP [19], which will assist a better performance.

At the same time, runner’s sex could be related to a greater tendency to develop RP variations. Various studies have corroborated that men tend to reduce RP in the second half of the marathon, corresponding to a PP [3, 9, 26]. On the contrary, when the same situation happens among women, it appears later on and their RP has less variations [17, 24, 26]. In this sense, a study by March et al. [18] underlined the tendency of the female runners of the midwestern U.S. (2005–2007) marathon to adopt profiles which had less rate variation than male runners. This difference might be the result of physiological factors (i.e. higher percentage of slow-twitch oxidative, larger capacity to oxidize more fatty acids and less carbohydrate). Nevertheless, another aspect to bear in mind is the difference in the decision-displaying depending on the sex, showing a major trend to assume a “riskier” profile in men than women, and thus making a faster first half of the marathon [26].

Despite the crucial importance of correctly choosing a competitive profile according to the characteristics of the athlete, which will enable a superior performance in the race, there is a lack of unanimity about what type of profile should be chosen based on the athlete`s performance and sex. Furthermore, notwithstanding this relevance, no previous studies have analysed both factors in elite marathon runners. Thus, the aims of this study were: 1) to analyse the different race profiles displayed in the same marathon based on athlete's performance, and 2) to determine whether significant differences in each race split and the runner's performance implied different race profiles.

Methods

Participants

2295 runners were included in the research of which 637 were female. The selection criteria for inclusion in the study were: 1) to have completed the competition; 2) to have successfully completed and recorded the split of each competition; 3) the absence of atypical record; 4) to have finished the race in time ≤03:00:00 h for men and ≤03:30:00 for women.

Splits and race final times of the marathon (Berlin 2017) were obtained through the official web page of Berlin´s Marathon (www.bmw-berlin-marathon.com, 2017) where a total of 39225 individuals participated. After applying all the inclusion criteria, the total number of valid records dropped to 2295 (5.85% of the total runners).

The participants were divided into 4 groups in accordance with their race performance. All athletes which run below or equal to the qualifying standard of the World Athletics Championship (London 2017) established by IAAF (www.iaaf.org, 2017) were included in the Elite group. The subsequent groups were based on 15 minutes time intervals (Top 2 and Top 3), except for Top 1 group which was fixed in 11 minutes (Table 1).

Table 1

Distribution of groups based on sex and performance.

Group	Men		Women
	Time (h:min:sec)	N	Time (h:min:sec)	N
Elite	≤2h:19:00	33	≤ 2h:45:00	22
Top1	≤2h:30:00	79	≤3h:00:00	67
Top2	≤2h:45:00	384	≤3h:15:00	159
Top3	≤3h:00:00	1162	≤3h:30:00	389

Ten race splits were analysed (0–5 km, 5–10 km, 10–15 km, 15–20 km, 20–21.1 km, 21.1–25 km, 25–30 km, 30–35 km, 35–40 km, 40–42.2 km). Due to the fact that the data was freely available in the public domain, the requirement for informed consent was not necessary. Moreover, this study was conducted in accordance with Helsinki Declaration (1964 and amended in 2013) concerning human experimentation.

Profile criteria

In order to establish an objective criterion to define the pacing profile (based on RP variation), the present study was based on the method described by Deaner, Carter, Joyner and Hunter [26]. The variation was calculated as (% change = [1 - (second half time—first half time) / first half time] • 100). If the change was less than 10%, be it positive or negative, it was considered EP. If the variation was greater than 10% negative, it was considered PP and if the variation was greater than 10% positive, it was considered NP.

Statistical analysis

The average speed was normalized for each race split according to the mean speed of the marathon for each individual athlete. Thus, a value higher than 1.00 implies that the split time was faster than the average RP. At the same time, a value below 1.00 means a slower pace than the average race speed. This normalization enables the comparison of race profile between runners, regardless of their performance. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS software (Cary, NC, USA).

For the comparison of the results, a homogeneity of variance test was carried out using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises and Anderson-Darling tests for all the variables of the study separated by sex and classes. In this way, if the variables were not normally distributed, the Krustal-Wallis test was used (nonparametric ANOVA). A post-hoc comparison with adjustments with multiple comparison tests of two paired sides (Dwass Method, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) and empirical distribution function test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises), were undergone using the Group as a classification variable. Cohen’s d was used as a measure of effect size, using the reference values of small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5) and large (d = 0.8) for interpreting them as suggested by Cohen [27]. In addition, qualitative analysis of confidence intervals of differences was performed. The significant difference was established for a p value <0.05.

Results

Sex performance differences in pacing

The normalized speed in each split, sex and performance group is shown in Fig 1 for men and Fig 2 for women. In men, no statistically significant differences were found between groups and splits, except for 0–5 km and 21.1–25 km splits (Table 2).

Fig 1

Paired profiles of average pace per split and group for men.

Fig 2

Paired profiles of average pace per split and group for women.

Table 2

Relationship between groups and average pace of competition in men.

Split	Group	Z	P	CI (95%)	d
0–5 km	Top2 vs Top3	3.4924	0.0027	0.044–0.275	0.16
21.1–25 km	Top2 vs Top3	3.0058	0.0141	0.033–0.264	0.15

Amongst women, we observed a large number of differences between groups which were statistically significant (5–10 km, 10–15 km, 15–20 km, 20–21.1 km, 25–30 km and 30–35 km) as seen in Table 3.

Table 3

Relationship between groups and average pace of competition in women.

Split	Group	Z	P	CI (95%)	d
5–10 km	Top2 vs Top3	2.9310	0.0178	-0.021–0.348	0.16
10–15 km	Top1 vs Top2	-2.8747	0.0211	-0.668 - -0.093	0.38
15–20 km	Top1 vs Top2	-2.6687	0.0382	-0.694 - -0.118	0.41
20–21.1km	Elite vs Top2	-3.0347	0.0129	-0.801 - -0.094	0.36
	Elite vs Top3	-3.5734	0.002	-0,955 - -0.093	0.53
	Top1 vs Top2	-2.8413	0.0233	-0,548–0.025	0.26
	Top1 vs Top3	-3.8579	0.0007	-0,668 –-0.147	0.41
25–30 km	Elite vs Top2	2.7873	0.0273	0.022–0.919	0.47
	Elite vs Top3	2.9739	0.0156	0.036–0.898	0.47
30–35 km	Elite vs Top2	3.1259	0.0096	0.061–0.959	0.51
	Top1 vs Top2	2.8959	0.0198	0.024–0.598	0.31
	Top2 vs Top3	-3.2265	0.0069	-0.450- -0.080	0.27

Fig 3 represents a comparison between male runners’ group and the splits within which significant differences were found. The cumulative distribution function was used to establish how to approach the race within a group. As shown in Fig 3A and 3B Top 3 group was characterized by a wide diversity of speed (from 65% to 120% of average speed). On the contrary, in Elite and Top 1 groups their cumulative distribution was almost vertical (Fig 3A and 3B), which implies that almost 100% of the athletes of these groups were running at their average speed during the marathon.

Fig 3

Competition profile of the male athletes in splits with significant differences between groups.

“X” axis: standardized velocity; “Y” axis: relative frequency. A standardized velocity of "1" represent the mean velocity of the athletes in the marathon.

The subsequent post-hoc analysis presented significant differences in the 0–5 km and 21.1–25 km splits, for Top 2 and Top 3 groups (Table 2). However, the effect size of these differences was small (Table 2). A positive Z score (Table 2) implies that Top 2 group displayed a higher speed relative to mean overall race speed during the marathon than Top 3 for these splits.

On the other hand, women displayed a greater heterogeneity in their start RP (Fig 2). Significant differences were found between groups and their average RP in numerous splits. At the same time, and with the exception of Elite group, Top 1, Top 2 and Top 3 groups were characterized by completing the first half marathon faster than their mean RP (Fig 4A, 4B, 4C, 4d, 4e and 4f) which implied, at the same time, a reduction in speed below average RP in the second half of the race. The post-hoc analyses showed significant differences between groups and splits (Table 3).

Fig 4

Competition profile of the female athletes in splits with significant differences between groups.

“X” axis: standardized velocity; “Y” axis: relative frequency. A standardized velocity of "1" represent the mean velocity of the athletes in the marathon.

In contrast with men, significant differences were detected in female runners from 20 km and subsequent splits (until 35–40 km) between groups which suggests a possible difference in competitive profile (Table 3).

Objective profile per sex performance differences

Tables 4 and 5 report, based on the classification methodology used that the EP was the predominant one in all performance and sex groups, followed by the PP. Only 0.12% of men and 0.16% of women developed the NP.

Table 4

Relation between pacing profiles and athletes`group for men.

Group	Even Pace	Positive Pace	Negative Pace
Elite	96.97%	3.03%	0.00%
Top1	94.94%	5.06%	0.00%
Top2	90.10%	9.90%	0.00%
Top3	92.08%	7.75%	0.17%

Table 5

Relation between pacing profiles and athletes`group for women.

Group	Even Pace	Positive Pace	Negative Pace
Elite	95.45%	4.55%	0.00%
Top1	95.52%	4.48%	0.00%
Top2	90.57%	9.43%	0.00%
Top3	91.26%	8.48%	0.26%

Discussion

This study investigated the change in RP during the different splits in Berlin’s Marathon (2017 edition) in elite and well-trained men and women. The most important findings were: 1) we observed no difference of RP between performance group for men, which may be related to a similar competition profile; women presented numerous differences among groups, which indicated different competition profiles; 2) the objective profile criteria that was used demonstrated a predominance of the EP for men and women, independent of their performance or RP differences.

No statistically significant differences were found in men between the decrease in pace below the average speed, the segment in which it was produced and the performance of the runners. Only statistically significant differences were found in the segments 0–5 and 20–21.1 km between the Top2 and Top3 groups.

This lack of differences between splits in male runners, in spite of their performance group, was associated with the same RP. Even though, the runners’ performance in this study corresponds to high level athletes, the main profile was the positive one. This data does not differ from previous studies undertaken with lower level marathon runners [9, 18, 19, 28], where the PP is the leading one. A previous study done by Nikolaidis and Knetchtle [19] with a similar performance level (<3:00:00h) did not achieve the same results, with the EP being the most common profile amongst the best runners. It is important to emphasise that a different course topography can influence observed pacing behaviours, especially at the beginning of the competition (i.e. New York vs Berlin’ marathon), can have an effect on a more conservative start due to race elevation, causing an EP or NP.

In women, several differences were found between performance groups per split. The women Elite group was able to maintain a RP above average RP until the 25–30 km split. These data agree with a previous study of Santos-Lozano and colleagues [17] in the New York Marathon where the fastest female runners experienced a considerable drop in their RP at 30–35 km split. In the same line, Top 1 group tends to develop a similar profile as the Elite group. However, Top 1 group experienced a RP drop earlier in the race (20–21,1 km split) but less pronounced. These data are in accordance with previous studies which highlighted the best marathon runners were prone to display less variations in their RP [15, 16, 26, 29]. On the other hand, as the runners’ performance declined (Top 2 and 3 groups), the drop in their RP was larger, with a tendency to develop a PP. Deaner and colleagues [26] showed a similar trend with female heterogeneous performance runners (<3 h:22 min >5 h:36 min). Even though the tendency of increasing the development of PP is linked to a low level of performance, women are more prone to develop less variations in the RP in a marathon than men [26, 29].

The present study, after applying an objective profile criterion [26], showed a majority of EP (>90%), independently of sex and performance differences. Previous studies do not coincide with the results obtained in this work regarding the type of the most common profile (positive) for men in races over this distance [17, 30, 31]. This "classic" profile is characterized by a dramatic drop in the average speed of the race during the second part of the competition [20], which is related to the depletion of glycogen stores muscle [4], an increase in internal temperature and increase in RPE [8] among other physiological, biomechanical and psychological factors. In addition, it should be borne in mind that this type of competition profile may respond to an unrealistic perception of the athlete in relation to his ability to maintain speed throughout the race [13]. For all these reasons Díaz et al. [20] propose to aim for NP as an optimal strategy.

On the other hand, the EP, which is predominant in this study although more common in shorter duration competitions [32], will be able to report a better performance. This will be achieved thanks to lower fluctuations in the race speed, which lead to a better energy efficiency [14]. The finding in the present study of a wide majority of runners display EP (independent of their sex and performance) does not coincide with previous studies which underlined a lack of significant variation of RP (related to Negative and EP) just in some of the best runners [9, 19, 28].

Regarding the NP, a study by Renfree and Gibson [16] showed the predominance of this type of profile in the athletes with greater performance in the first segment (0–5 km) during the women's marathon world championship (2009). Thus, this group adopted a NP, during the first 10 km, they decreased its RP later than the rest, and therefore obtained a higher performance. In the present study, only 0.12% of men and 0.16% of women displayed this type of profile. Based on the data obtained in this study, it can be observed that this type of profile is minority regardless of sex and performance.

However, the detection of a small percentage of athletes who developed a NP and PP in this study can be explained by the application of the classification criteria proposed by Deaner et al. [26]. If we exclusively follow the criteria set by Abbiss and Laursen [13], observing Figs 1 and 2, we could interpret the existence of a majority PP in both men and women, regardless of their final performance. The graphic representation (Figs 1 and 2) and the detection of the main competitive profiles in an objective manner by the proposal of Deaner et al. [26] do not have a coherent relationship.

One of the possible explanations for the difference between the data obtained in this study, with respect to main competitive profile, and others [17, 30, 31], may be based on the low sensitivity of the method used to establish a belonging to each profile. The methodology used by Deaner et al. [26], which identifies differences <10% between the first and second half as EP, means that there might be a considerable difference between the two halves but the developed profile cannot be differentiated. By means of such wide margins of time the type II error (β) can be very high. In the same way, for a greater precision and detection of developed profile it will be necessary to establish a greater number of segments to be assessed.

The need for a more sensitive methodology becomes more relevant in women due to the large number of differences between the performance group and the average speed of each segment. The method used to detect the different profiles [26] shows that all groups had the EP as predominant profile (Table 5). However, despite the fact that in all the female runner’s groups this profile similarity was detected, significant differences were found between the normalized speed in numerous segments based on the group of belonging, which suggests different profiles.

Finally, only several studies have proposed a random percentage of decrease in the average speed to perform a classification [26, 33]. In this way, PP and NPs are clearly defined. However, there is a lack of studies which establishes the maximum percentage of variation between segments to be considered uniform profile. Recently, a work by Diaz et al. [34] explained an objective method to categorize the main three profiles in marathon runners. Nevertheless, future researches will have to be conducted to promote an objective classification capable of detecting more than these three profiles, and thus increase the potential number of profiles and unify classification criteria.

Limitations

The present study has some limitations. One of them is the length of each split (5 km, except 20–21.1 km and 40–42.2 km splits). If shorter splits had been used (i.e. 1 km), we may have found greater variability [24, 35]. Another limitation of this study is that we did not consider the effect of running in a group (packing) into the pacing strategy, and this could be a key point which influences pacing strategy [15]. The faster the runner’s RP is, the less participants running together and when one of them dropped out from his/her group their RP, and probably pacing strategy, change making a drop in the RP and a race profile change more probable. Conversely, the lower level runners may have benefitted from a greater density of runners during the race, which could help to maintain for a longer period of time a steady RP. Another limitation of this study is that it was not considered that the lower the performance level of runners is (in these crowed marathons), the more likely they will suffer from “runner’s jam” at the start of the race, which might change their RP in the first kilometres and the subsequent race profile. Unfortunately, our study has not been capable of detecting this as the marathon races are influenced by plenty of factors, making them complex systems [10].

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that no differences exist in pacing among elite (≤2h:19:00) and well-trained (≤3h:00:00) male marathoners, which means they display similar race profiles despite their performance. However, in women, there were numerous significant differences based on their performance and competitive segment, which indicates different competitive profiles. The best female runners (≤3:00:00 h) developed less RP variation than lower performance groups. This performance difference among runner groups could imply the use of different race profiles.

14 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-04748

Different Race Paces and Race Profiles in the best runners on Berlin´s Marathon

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Mecías Calvo,

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.

While the referees have scored low this manuscript, I would expect it may be considered when all the concerns raised by the referees be addressed in another round of reviews. Importantly, an English revision by a mother tongue scientist is required before further considerations. Therefore, this Editor would like to give a chance to the authors but clearly stating that this does not necessarily means that the manuscript was finally accepted. The major reason for this is the novelty of the results.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel Boullosa

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section.

3. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

[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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This study analyzed pacing behaviours displayed by 2295 runners in the 2017 Berlin marathon. The primary finding was that after speeds were normalised to race average, there were few differences between athletes of different absolute performance levels in males, but in females there were a large number of differences between groups at various points.

Unfortunately, as it stands, I feel the quality of English language used is insufficient to allow publication of the paper in its current format as there are numerous grammatical errors throughout. The work would greatly benefit from detailed proofreading , as there are a lot of places when the meaning of statements is unclear.

Furthermore (although the findings are slightly surprising & differ from many other analyses in the literature) I dont really see what is novel about this study or what it brings to the body of literature on pacing. The rationale is quite 'shaky' and you cant determine what stategy an athlete 'should' adopt based on a descriptive study of one race such as this.

Methodology is generally sound, but the groupings of athletes seems arbitrary and requires justification. for example the >3 hours group in males potentially covers a very wide range of abilities who may have widely varying motivational profiles.

Reviewer #2: The current study examines the pacing strategies conducted by a great number of runners competing at 2017 Berlin of Marathon and compare these strategies by level of performance. They also describe separately the different profiles observed in males and females. This study is interesting given the great number of runners nowadays who train for running marathon races and I also find interesting the specific comparison made between pacing strategies conducted by elite and recreational runners.

However, I have major concerns which should be addressed by authors prior to consider myself the present manuscript suitable for publication. On the one hand, the manuscript contains several grammar mistakes throughout which should be corrected. I encouraged authors to ask for the help of a native English speaker to conduct these corrections. On the other hand, I suggest authors to distribute differently the narrative structure which may explain the findings obtained in a more thorough way.

Specific comments are raised below.

Title:

I suggest a more correct (grammar) and precise title: ‘Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes’

Abstract:

No reference to the specific race from which data was taken was made. I also miss some descriptions regarding the specific pacing profiles conducted by both women and men. No reference was made to the data normalization process conducted prior to conducting the different comparisons. This is a critical aspect which should be highlighted. I think that removing some of the specific results found or summarizing them through the indication of ranges rather is needed to include these necessary points suggested.

Introduction:

Authors failed to structure adequately the introduction. In the current study the influence of two main variables (i,e., sex and level of performance) on performance outcomes was measured. Therefore, the introduction should focus on explaining the existing evidence describing the typical pacing strategies observed in elite runners and runners who possesses lower performance level as well as the differences observed by sex. Results from current evidence should be explained according to these aspects.

Methods:

Results:

The table 3 is not clearly indicated. For example, it is not clear which comparisons belong to each split.

Figure 3 and 4 are difficult be understood. For example, no reference to the meaning of X and Y axes is indicated in the legend. It should be clarified.

Discussion:

From L141 to L165 authors just describe the results found without discussing them according to existing research. This should be part of the results rather than the discussion.

Referencing swimming studies is not worth in the discussion of a pacing analysis in marathon given the amount of existing pacing studies focused specifically on the marathon race.

According to the structure suggested for the introduction, authors are encouraged to compare the outcomes observed in the current study separately. For example, comparing the pacing profile observed in elite runners with results observed in existing research focused specifically on elite runners. Same should be done with research focused on runners with lower level of performance. Additionnaly, same should be done when comparing observations made in female runners as some previous research just focused on this specific population. In this sense, I miss the reference to studies strongly related to this specific topic which focused on pacing strategies conducted in marathon runners.

In addition, when conducting studies of such type, there are some limitations which should be addressed in the text. For example, the influence of running in a group on the pacing strategy selected was not even mentioned. As long as the level of performance is decreasing, the density of runners representing the number of participants running together is also increasing. For example, it is very likely that a higher proportion of runners belonging to the Elite group dropped out from the group they were running with and had to run individually. As the influence of this type of circumstances was not analyzed, this should be stated as a limitation. Hanley (5) studied the influence of running in a group (packing) in elite marathons. In addition, Renfree and Casado reviewed the different existing influences in Athletic races which transform them in complex systems.

Renfree A., Casado A. (2018) Athletics races represent complex systems and pacing behavior should be viewed as emergent phenomenon. Frontiers in Physiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01432

Furthermore, very likely those runners achieving lower level of performance experienced difficulties to run at a given pace in the beginning of the race as in crowdy races such as Berlin Marathon many runners start the race together and they usually get blocked. This also represents a limitation of this study which should be stated specially when referring to the specific comparison made between groups of different level of performance.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 May 2020

AUTHORS’ INTRODUCTION

Thank you for providing us with constructive comments regarding our article and for inviting us to submit this revised version. We have made several changes to the manuscript and have addressed all of the comments made by the reviewers. We honestly think that the article has improved as a consequence and is now ready for publication. Thank you very much for your help.

Our reply to the reviewer’s comments can be found below. Our changes in the manuscript are highlighted by track changes.

REVIEWER 1

Comments for the Author

Unfortunately, as it stands, I feel the quality of English language used is insufficient to allow publication of the paper in its current format as there are numerous grammatical errors throughout. The work would greatly benefit from detailed proofreading, as there are a lot of places when the meaning of statements is unclear.

Authors’ reply: the English quality of the present manuscript has been improved.

Furthermore (although the findings are slightly surprising & differ from many other analyses in the literature) I dont really see what is novel about this study or what it brings to the body of literature on pacing.

Authors’ reply: the novelty of our study lies in the fact that there are no differences in the race profile between elite and well-training runners when the RP is normalized. This finding is remarkably different compared with previous studies. In turn, women develop less RP variations, as previous studies have showed. However, there are no differences among the best runners and the subsequent group (Top1). This highlight represents a similar race strategy in the elite and well-trained athletes. Another novel point in our study is the comparison among smaller performance groups than previous studies. This has been afforded us to detect differences for women, and no differences, for men, regarding the RP distribution. To sum up, to the best of the author’s knowledge, these results have not yet been shown in other studies.

The rationale is quite 'shaky' and you can’t determine what stategy an athlete 'should' adopt based on a descriptive study of one race such as this.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this feedback. In this sense, the aim of this study has not been to determine the best race strategy based on the runner performance. We completely agree with reviewer’s point of view about this key aspect, it is not possible to decide the best marathon strategy based on a descriptive analysis.

Methodology is generally sound, but the groupings of athletes seems arbitrary and requires justification. for example the >3 hours group in males potentially covers a very wide range of abilities who may have widely varying motivational profiles.

Authors’ reply: we based on the qualifying standard of the World Athletics Championship as an objective way to classify the best runners. After that, we established groups every 15 minutes interval (except for Top1 men group). With the aim of ensuring that the proposed classification reflected the differences in performance between groups, a Kruskal-Wallis test, and subsequent post-hoc test with Bonferroni adjustments, was conducted. This analysis showed that all the groups were significantly different among them.

REVIEWER 2

Comments for the Author

Title:

I suggest a more correct (grammar) and precise title: ‘Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes’.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this suggestion. We have rewritten the title, taking into account the reviewer’s advice.

Abstract:

No reference to the specific race from which data was taken was made.

Authors’ reply: this information has been included in the abstract, lines 4-5.

I also miss some descriptions regarding the specific pacing profiles conducted by both women and men.

Authors’ reply: we completely agree with this point. However, due to the limited extension of the abstract, it has not been possible to include this valuable information in this section.

No reference was made to the data normalization process conducted prior to conducting the different comparisons. This is a critical aspect which should be highlighted. I think that removing some of the specific results found or summarizing them through the indication of ranges rather is needed to include these necessary points suggested.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this note. We have modified the abstract and completed it with the indicated information (lines 8-9).

Introduction:

Authors failed to structure adequately the introduction. In the current study the influence of two main variables (i,e., sex and level of performance) on performance outcomes was measured. Therefore, the introduction should focus on explaining the existing evidence describing the typical pacing strategies observed in elite runners and runners who possesses lower performance level as well as the differences observed by sex. Results from current evidence should be explained according to these aspects.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this feedback. We have improved the introduction, focusing its structure on these two main variables (sex: lines 66 and level of performance: 58).

Methods:

Results:

The table 3 is not clearly indicated. For example, it is not clear which comparisons belong to each split.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this note. We have improved the information regarding table 3 and its description.

Figure 3 and 4 are difficult be understood. For example, no reference to the meaning of X and Y axes is indicated in the legend. It should be clarified.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this note. We have included, in the figure legend, the meaning of “X” and “Y” axes.

Discussion:

From L141 to L165 authors just describe the results found without discussing them according to existing research. This should be part of the results rather than the discussion.

Authors’ reply: we agree with reviewer’s point of view, this subsection of discussion has been discarded.

Referencing swimming studies is not worth in the discussion of a pacing analysis in marathon given the amount of existing pacing studies focused specifically on the marathon race.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this note. We have dismissed these studies and used more suitable ones.

According to the structure suggested for the introduction, authors are encouraged to compare the outcomes observed in the current study separately. For example, comparing the pacing profile observed in elite runners with results observed in existing research focused specifically on elite runners. Same should be done with research focused on runners with lower level of performance. Additionnaly, same should be done when comparing observations made in female runners as some previous research just focused on this specific population. In this sense, I miss the reference to studies strongly related to this specific topic which focused on pacing strategies conducted in marathon runners.

Authors’ reply: thanks for this valuable notice. Taking into account this feedback, several modifications have been conducted in discussion section. Two subsections have been created: Sex per performance differences in pacing and objective profile per sex per performance (lines 177-205).

In addition, when conducting studies of such type, there are some limitations which should be addressed in the text. For example, the influence of running in a group on the pacing strategy selected was not even mentioned. As long as the level of performance is decreasing, the density of runners representing the number of participants running together is also increasing. For example, it is very likely that a higher proportion of runners belonging to the Elite group dropped out from the group they were running with and had to run individually. As the influence of this type of circumstances was not analyzed, this should be stated as a limitation. Hanley (5) studied the influence of running in a group (packing) in elite marathons. In addition, Renfree and Casado reviewed the different existing influences in Athletic races which transform them in complex systems.

Renfree A., Casado A. (2018) Athletics races represent complex systems and pacing behavior should be viewed as emergent phenomenon. Frontiers in Physiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01432

Furthermore, very likely those runners achieving lower level of performance experienced difficulties to run at a given pace in the beginning of the race as in crowdy races such as Berlin Marathon many runners start the race together and they usually get blocked. This also represents a limitation of this study which should be stated specially when referring to the specific comparison made between groups of different level of performance.

Authors’ reply: thanks for these valuable suggestions. We have included the limitations section considering these useful advices.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-04748R1

Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mecías Calvo,

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, after consideration of the reviewer's requests, ask a mother tongue sport scientist to revise the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: I thank the authors for the revisions to the manuscript. However, there are still numerous grammatical errors that should be corrected before it can be considered suitable for publication. Specifically:

Abstract

Line 15 – change to analyse different pacing behaviours, not ‘race paces’ (which will obviously be higher in faster runners)

Line 22 – change to ‘no statistically significant changes were found…’

Line 23 – change to ‘a large number of significant differences between splits and groups were found amongst women’

Line 29-30. Not clear what you mean

Line 30-32, As above. Do you mean a positive profile was the most commonly displayed one?

Introduction

Line 38 – The marathon is one of the most popular…

Line 41 – delete ‘in the race day’

Line 44 – replace ‘pointed out’ with ‘demonstrated’

Line 47-8 – have been implicated in the determination of pacing behaviour

Line 57 – delete ‘a’

Line 58 – delete ‘the’ before performance

Line 59 – 60: makes little sense

Line 62 – change for to by

Line 64 – change dramatically to dramatic

Line 66- change the runners to ‘runners’

Line 67 – change ‘pf the ‘ to ‘towards a’

Line 71 – change deep speed drop to ‘large speed reduction’

Line 74 – change ‘main’ to ‘largely’

Line 75 – what do you mean by ‘broader’? higher?

Line 77 – ‘may be more important in determining…’

Line 78 – change ease to ‘assist’

Line 81 – change ‘which answers to’ to ‘corresponding to…’

Line 83 – delete ‘made’

Line 89 – change ‘making’ to ‘displaying’

Line 91 – change ‘greater’ to ‘superior’

Line 95 – change ‘race paces’ to race profiles displayed in the same marathon

Method

102 – what do you mean by ‘recorded the split’?

Line 102 – what is an atypical record?

Line 106 – changed ‘records were obtained’ to ‘ individuals participated’

Line 106 – change amount to number

Line 107 - end sentence after info in brackets. The rest is repetition.

Line 109 – ‘into’ 4 groups

Line 112 – ‘were based on 15 minute time intervals’

Line 116-117 – As the data was freely available in the public domain, the requirement for informed consent was not necessary.

Line 119 – amended

Line 122 – change to ‘pacing profile’

Line 124 – delete ‘percentage’

Line 125 – delete ‘percentage’

Line 130 – ‘the marathon for each individual athlete’

Results

Line 146 – delete ‘per’

Line 148 – in men, no statistically significant differences were found…

Line 150 – ‘Amongst women, we observed a large number of differences between groups which were statistically significant’

Line 153 – change men to male, and ‘the spits within which significant differences were found’.

Line 157 – change practically to almost

Line 161-162 – change implied to implies and ‘displayed a higher speed relative to mean overall race speed’

Table 2 – statistically significant but small effect size. Worthy of comment?

Line 165 – change confirmed to displayed

Line 168 – change for to ‘by’ , a to ‘the’, and beyond to ‘faster than’

Line 169 – ‘a reduction in speed below average…’

Line 173 – change corroborates to suggests

Line 174 – change ‘of’ to ‘in’

Line 176 – delete second ‘per’

Line 177-8 – Tables 4 and 5 suggest that EP was the most commonly displayed pacing profile in both genders and at all levels of performance. This was followed by PP.’ Delete ‘regarding this’

Discussion

Line 185 – we observed no differences in RP…

Line 187 – change showed to demonstrated

Line 190 – delete ‘per’

Line 196 – change of to in

Line 198 – change with to from and which to where

Line 199 – ‘a previous study by…’

Line 200 – ‘with EP being the most common profile amongst the best runners’.

Line 201 – ‘it is important to emphasise that a different course topography can influence observed pacing behaviours’

Line 204-205 – delete ‘which involved different competition profile’

Line 205 – the womens elite group was able to maintain a RP above average until …

Line 209 – delete experimented and replace with ‘ experienced a RP drop earlier in the race’

Line 211 – change develop to display

Line 214 - showed ‘a similar…’

Line 217 - in ‘a’ marathon

Line 218 – delete second ‘per’

Line 221 – the most common profile

Line 225 – an increase in RPE

Line 228-9 – Diaz et al propose to aim for EP as an optimal strategy

Line 230-231 – reword this sentence please

Line 233 – ‘that the majority of runners display EP..’

Line 237 – St Clair Gibson

Line 241 – change developed to displayed

Line 246 – delete ‘because’

Line 250 – you need to explain this statement

Line 253 – is there a word missing after ‘establish’?

Line 258 – assessed is probably a better word than valued here

Line 270 – replace ‘on’ with ‘in’

Line 276 – If shorter splits had been used, we may have found greater variability

Line 277-8 – ‘we did not consider the effect of running in a group’

Line 281 - ‘variated’? I do not know this word

Line 282 – change inversely to conversely and ‘may have benefitted from a greater density of runners…’

Line 291 – ‘well-trained’ and change develop to display

Line 292 – delete ‘of’

Line 293 – replace ‘points out’ with ‘indicates’

Reviewer #2: The authors have now improved the quality of the present manuscript substantially. Congratulations for the great work.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Arturo Casado

[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.

8 Jul 2020

AUTHORS’ INTRODUCTION

Thank you for providing us with constructive comments regarding our article and for inviting us to submit this revised version. We have made several changes to the manuscript and have addressed all of the comments made by the reviewer. We honestly think that the article has improved as a consequence and is now ready for publication. Thank you very much for your help.

Our reply to the reviewer’s comments can be found below. Our changes in the manuscript are highlighted by track changes.

REVIEWER 1

Comments for the Author

Abstract:

Line 15 – change to analyse different pacing behaviours, not ‘race paces’ (which will obviously be higher in faster runners). The changes that the reviewer suggests have been made.

Line 22 – change to ‘no statistically significant changes were found…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 23 – change to ‘a large number of significant differences between splits and groups were found amongst women’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 29-30. Not clear what you mean. We decided to remove the last part of the sentence to improve the understanding.

Line 30-32, As above. Do you mean a positive profile was the most commonly displayed one? We decided to remove the last part of the sentence to improve the understanding.

Introduction:

Line 38 – The marathon is one of the most popular… The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 41 – delete ‘in the race day’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 44 – replace ‘pointed out’ with ‘demonstrated’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 47-8 – have been implicated in the determination of pacing behavior. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 57 – delete ‘a’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 58 – delete ‘the’ before performance. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 59 – 60: makes little sense. The sentence has been modified to improve the understanding

Line 62 – change for to by. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 64 – change dramatically to dramatic. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 66- change the runners to ‘runners’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 67 – change ‘pf the ‘ to ‘towards a’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 71 – change deep speed drop to ‘large speed reduction’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 74 – change ‘main’ to ‘largely’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 75 – what do you mean by ‘broader’? higher? The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 77 – ‘may be more important in determining…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has made.

Line 78 – change ease to ‘assist’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 81 – change ‘which answers to’ to ‘corresponding to…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 83 – delete ‘made’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 89 – change ‘making’ to ‘displaying’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 91 – change ‘greater’ to ‘superior’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 95 – change ‘race paces’ to race profiles displayed in the same marathon. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Method

102 – what do you mean by ‘recorded the split’? Sometimes the 5 km splits are not recorded and the organization of the race publishes partial numbers of splits but not all of them. In the present study if a runner did not have every split recorded he/she was excluded from the data analyze.

Line 102 – what is an atypical record? Sometimes the record of the data is wrong. For example, for 5-10 km split it could appear a runner ran at 250% of his average speed, and this is practically impossible.

Line 106 – changed ‘records were obtained’ to ‘ individuals participated’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 106 – change amount to number. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 107 - end sentence after info in brackets. The rest is repetition. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 109 – ‘into’ 4 groups. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 112 – ‘were based on 15 minute time intervals’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 116-117 – As the data was freely available in the public domain, the requirement for informed consent was not necessary. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 119 – amended. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 122 – change to ‘pacing profile’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 124 – delete ‘percentage’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 125 – delete ‘percentage’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 130 – ‘the marathon for each individual athlete’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Results:

Line 146 – delete ‘per’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 148 – in men, no statistically significant differences were found… The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 150 – ‘Amongst women, we observed a large number of differences between groups which were statistically significant’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 153 – change men to male, and ‘the spits within which significant differences were found’.

Line 157 – change practically to almost. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 161-162 – change implied to implies and ‘displayed a higher speed relative to mean overall race speed’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Table 2 – statistically significant but small effect size. Worthy of comment? Yes, we have decided to include a brief commentary about this (line 157-158).

Line 165 – change confirmed to displayed. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 168 – change for to ‘by’ , a to ‘the’, and beyond to ‘faster than’. The changes that the reviewer suggests have been made.

Line 169 – ‘a reduction in speed below average…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 173 – change corroborates to suggests. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 174 – change ‘of’ to ‘in’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 176 – delete second ‘per’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 177-8 – Tables 4 and 5 suggest that EP was the most commonly displayed pacing profile in both genders and at all levels of performance. This was followed by PP.’

Delete ‘regarding this’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Discussion:

Line 185 – we observed no differences in RP… The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 187 – change showed to demonstrated. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 190 – delete ‘per’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 196 – change of to in. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 198 – change with to from and which to where. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 199 – ‘a previous study by…’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 200 – ‘with EP being the most common profile amongst the best runners’. The

change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 201 – ‘it is important to emphasise that a different course topography can influence observed pacing behaviours’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 204-205 – delete ‘which involved different competition profile’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 205 – the womens elite group was able to maintain a RP above average until … The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 209 – delete experimented and replace with ‘ experienced a RP drop earlier in the race’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 211 – change develop to display. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 214 - showed ‘a similar…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 217 - in ‘a’ marathon The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 218 – delete second ‘per’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 221 – the most common profile The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 225 – an increase in RPE. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 228-9 – Diaz et al propose to aim for EP as an optimal strategy. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 230-231 – reword this sentence please. This sentence has been remade (line 227-228).

Line 233 – ‘that the majority of runners display EP..’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 237 – St Clair Gibson. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 241 – change developed to displayed. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 246 – delete ‘because’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 250 – you need to explain this statement. One explanation to this statement has been showed from line 248 to 250.

Line 253 – is there a word missing after ‘establish’? This error has been corrected.

Line 258 – assessed is probably a better word than valued here. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 270 – replace ‘on’ with ‘in’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 276 – If shorter splits had been used, we may have found greater variability. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 277-8 – ‘we did not consider the effect of running in a group’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 281 - ‘variated’? I do not know this word The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 282 – change inversely to conversely and ‘may have benefitted from a greater density of runners…’ The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 291 – ‘well-trained’ and change develop to display. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 292 – delete ‘of’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Line 293 – replace ‘points out’ with ‘indicates’. The change that the reviewer suggests has been made.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 Jul 2020

Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes

PONE-D-20-04748R2

Dear Dr. Mecías Calvo,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

16 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-04748R2

Different race pacing strategies among runners covering the 2017 Berlin Marathon under 3 hours and 30 minutes

Dear Dr. Mecías Calvo:

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

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 plosone@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. Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE