Pacing strategies in marathons: A systematic review

Background

The pacing strategy embodies the tactical behavior of athletes in distributing their energy across different segments of a race; therefore, a quantitative analysis of pacing strategies in marathon races could deepen the understanding of both pacing behavior and physical capacity in marathon athletics.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize and characterize pacing strategies in marathon road races by exploring the categories of pacing strategies and the factors that influence these strategies during marathon events.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were followed for systematic searches, appraisals, and syntheses of literature on this topic. Electronic databases such as Science Direct, SPORTDiscuss, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched up to July 2024. Records were eligible if they included pace performance measurements during competition, without experimental intervention that may influence their pace, in healthy, adult athletes at any level.

Results

A total of 39 studies were included in the review. Twenty-nine were observational studies, and 10 were experimental (randomized controlled trials). The assessment of article quality revealed an overall median NOS score of 8 (range 5-9). The included studies examined the pacing profiles of master athletes and finishers in half-marathon (n = 7, plus numbers compared to full marathon), full-marathon (n = 21), and ultramarathon (n = 11) road races. Considering that some studies refer to multiple pacing strategies, in general, 5 studies (∼13 %) reported even pacing, 3 (∼8 %) reported parabolic pacing, 7 (∼18 %) reported negative pacing, and 30 (∼77 %) reported positive pacing during marathon competitions. Gender, age, performance, pack, and physiological and psychological factors influence pacing strategies.

Conclusion

This study synthesized pacing performance in marathons and highlighted the significance of examining pacing strategies in these events, offering valuable insights for coaches and athletes. Several key findings were highlighted: (1) pacing profiles and pacing ranges were identified as the primary indicators of pacing strategies; (2) the pacing strategy was found to be dynamic, with the most substantial effects attributed to gender and distance; and (3) three distinct types of pacing strategies for marathons were classified: positive, negative, and even pacing. These findings advance the understanding of marathon pacing strategies by shedding light on the factors that influence athletes' pacing decisions and behaviors. Additionally, these findings offer practical benefits, aiding athletes in making well-informed tactical choices and developing effective pace plans to enhance marathon performance. However, due to the complex nature of marathon racing, further research is required to explore additional factors that might impact pacing strategies. A better grasp of optimal pacing strategies will foster progress in this area and serve as a basis for future research and advancements.

Training, Anthropometric, and Physiological Characteristics in Men Recreational Marathon Runners: The Role of Sport Experience

The aim of the present study was to examine the physiological and training characteristics in marathon runners with different sport experiences (defined as the number of finishes in marathon races). The anthropometry and physiological characteristics of men recreational endurance runners with three or less finishes in marathon races (novice group, NOV; n = 69, age 43.5 ± 8.0 years) and four or more finishes (experienced group, EXP; n = 66, 45.2 ± 9.4 years) were compared. EXP had faster personal best marathon time (3:44 ± 0:36 vs. 4:20 ± 0:44 h:min, p < 0.001, respectively); lower flexibility (15.9 ± 9.3 vs. 19.3 ± 15.9 cm, p = 0.022), abdominal (20.6 ± 7.9 vs. 23.8 ± 9.0 mm, p = 0.030) and iliac crest skinfold thickness (16.7 ± 6.7 vs. 19.9 ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.013), and body fat assessed by bioimpedance analysis (13.0 ± 4.4 vs. 14.6 ± 4.7%, p = 0.047); more weekly training days (4.6 ± 1.4 vs. 4.1 ± 1.0 days, p = 0.038); and longer weekly running distance (58.8 ± 24.0 vs. 47.2 ± 16.1 km, p = 0.001) than NOV. The findings indicated that long-term marathon training might induce adaptations in endurance performance, body composition, and flexibility.

The week after running a marathon: Effects of running vs elliptical training vs resting on neuromuscular performance and muscle damage recovery

Our aim was to compare the effects of two exercise modalities vs resting on the time course of neuromuscular performance and muscle damage recovery during the week after running a marathon. Sixty-four finishers from a road marathon completed the study (54 men and 10 women; 39 ± 4 years; 3 h 35 min ± 21 min). The day before the race, within 15 min after finishing the marathon and at 24, 48, 96, 144 and 192 h postrace, lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase were analysed. Participants also performed a squat jump (SJ) test before and after the marathon and at 48, 96 and 144 h postrace. On their arrival to the finish line, participants were randomized into one of the three intervention groups: running (RUN), elliptical training (ELIP) and resting recovery (REST). RUN and ELIP groups exercised continuously for 40 min at a moderate intensity (95-105% of the HR corresponding to the first ventilatory threshold) at 48, 96 and 144 h after the marathon. Neither 'Intervention' factor nor 'Intervention x Time' interaction effects were revealed for muscle damage blood markers (p > 0.05). On the other hand, RUN group evidenced an enhancement in SJ performance 96 h post-marathon as compared with REST group (108.29 ± 10.64 vs 100.58 ± 9.16%, p = 0.020, d = 0.80). Consequently, return to running at 48 h post-marathon does not seem to have a negative impact on muscle damage recovery up to eight days post-race and it could be recommended in order to speed up neuromuscular recovery.

Using Accelerometry for Evaluating Energy Consumption and Running Intensity Distribution Throughout a Marathon According to Sex

The proportion of females participating in long-distance races has been increasing in the last years. Although it is well-known that there are differences in how females and males face a marathon, higher research may be done to fully understand the intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting sex differences in endurance performance. In this work, we used triaxial accelerometer devices to monitor 74 males and 14 females, aged 30 to 45 years, who finished the Valencia Marathon in 2016. Moreover, marathon split times were provided by organizers. Several physiological traits and training habits were collected from each participant. Then, we evaluated several accelerometry- and pace-estimated parameters (pacing, average change of speed, energy consumption, oxygen uptake, running intensity distribution and running economy) in female and male amateur runners. In general, our results showed that females maintained a more stable pacing and ran at less demanding intensity throughout the marathon, limiting the decay of running pace in the last part of the race. In fact, females ran at 4.5% faster pace than males in the last kilometers. Besides, their running economy was higher than males (consumed nearly 19% less relative energy per distance) in the last section of the marathon. Our results may reflect well-known sex differences in physiology (i.e., muscle strength, fat metabolism, VO_2max), and in running strategy approach (i.e., females run at a more conservative intensity level in the first part of the marathon compared to males). The use of accelerometer devices allows coaches and scientific community to constantly monitor a runner throughout the marathon, as well as during training sessions.

The Role of Nationality in Ultra-Endurance Sports: The Paradigm of Cross-Country Skiing and Long-Distance Running

Although the variation of performance by nationality in endurance sports such as marathon has been well studied, little information exists so far on the role of nationality on performance in ultra-endurance sports. The aim of the present study was to review the role of nationality on cross-country skiing and ultra-endurance running. Scopus and PubMed were searched using the syntax "nationality AND (ultra-endurance OR ultra-marathon OR cross-country skiing) in 1/4/2020. This search identified 17 articles, whose references were further examined for relevant literature. It was observed that Russian athletes dominated ultra-endurance running and cross-country skiing races. It was shown that these races were in other countries, where it was assumed that only the best Russians competed. Potential explanations could be misuse of performance enhancing substances, historical, climate-geographical and psychophysiological (e.g., combination of genetic and social factors). In summary, recent studies found a dominance of Russian athletes in specific races (i.e., 'Comrades Marathon', 'Vasaloppet', and 'Engadin Ski Marathon') and disciplines (i.e., ultra-marathon running, cross-country skiing) over a period of several decades. Future studies are need to investigate other events and other sport disciplines to confirm this Russian dominance.

Estimation of energy consumed by middle-aged recreational marathoners during a marathon using accelerometry-based devices

As long-distance races have substantially increased in popularity over the last few years, the improvement of training programs has become a matter of concern to runners, coaches and health professionals. Triaxial accelerometers have been proposed as a one of the most accurate tools to evaluate physical activity during free-living conditions. In this study, eighty-eight recreational marathon runners, aged 30–45 years, completed a marathon wearing a GENEActiv accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist. Energy consumed by each runner during the marathon was estimated based on both running speed and accelerometer output data, by applying the previously established GENEActiv cut-points for discriminating the six relative-intensity activity levels. Since accelerometry allowed to perform an individualized estimation of energy consumption, higher interpersonal differences in the number of calories consumed by a runner were observed after applying the accelerometry-based approach as compared to the speed-based method. Therefore, pacing analyses should include information of effort intensity distribution in order to adjust race pacing appropriately to achieve the marathon goal time. Several biomechanical and physiological parameters (maximum oxygen uptake, energy cost of running and running economy) were also inferred from accelerometer output data, which is of great value for coaches and doctors.