European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 108, Issue 3, pp 567–572 | Cite as

Pacing accuracy in collegiate and recreational runners

  • J. Matthew Green
  • Amber L. Sapp
  • Robert C. Pritchett
  • Phil A. Bishop
Original Article

Abstract

To examine runners’ ability to produce a prescribed pace, we compared prescribed versus actual 400 m splits for collegiate (COL, n = 12) and recreational runners (REC, n = 16). Participants completed a VO2max trial and on a 400 m track, three 3,200 m time trials. During three subsequent sessions, participants completed 800 m warm-up; then, based on their fastest 3,200 m steady pace, subjects completed six laps total at three prescribed paces: (a) 2× 400 m at 7% slower than steady pace (SLO), (b) 2× 400 m at steady pace (AT) and (c) 2× 400 m at 7% faster than steady pace (FAS). Instructions were to complete the sets of two laps in prescribed times (e.g., 75 s per 400 m) (no feedback). Deviation scores (absolute value of difference: prescribed vs. actual time) (s) for each 400 m lap were compared using a 2 (group) × 3 (trial) repeated measures ANOVA. Main effects for deviations among trials SLO (7.3 ± 6.5), AT (6.6 ± 6.9) and FAS (6.2 ± 5.7) were not significantly different (p > 0.05). However, group main effect for deviation scores was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (greater accuracy) for COL (2.9 ± 3.2 s) versus REC (9.5 ± 6.6 s). Deviation scores were also significantly different (p < 0.05) for SLO (COL: 3.1 ± 2.7 s, REC: 10.4 ± 6.7 s) and AT (COL: 1.9 ± 1.9 s, REC: 10.1 ± 7.2 s), with a trend for FAS (p = 0.06) (COL: 3.8 ± 4.3 s, REC: 7.9 ± 6.1 s). Bland–Altman plots showed better agreement (prescribed vs. actual) for COL. Experience and fitness of collegiate runners resulted in improved pacing accuracy.

Keywords

Running splits Pacing Racing Fitness 

References

  1. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansley A, Schabort E, Gibson A, Lambert M, Noakes TD (2004) Regulation of pacing strategies during successive 4-km time trials. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:1819–1825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannister R (2002) (Interview), website: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/ban0int-1
  4. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 346:1085–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg G (1982) Psychological bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14:377–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Firth M (1998) From high-tech to low tech: another look at time trail pacing strategy. Coaching News 3:7–10Google Scholar
  7. Foster C, Snyder AC, Thompson NN, Green MA, Foley M, Schrager M (1993) Effect of pacing strategy on cycle time trial performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:383–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Maud PJ, Foster C (2006) Physiological assessment of human fitness. Human Kinetics, Champagne, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. Pollock ML, Schmidt DH, Jackson AS (1980) Measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition in the clinical setting. Clin Therapy 6:12–27Google Scholar
  10. Sapp AL, Green JM, Bishop PA, Richardson M, Kerr K, Pritchett RC, Curtner-Smith M, Geisen J (2007) Pacing strategies: effects of experience and gender in runners during a 3200-m time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:S349Google Scholar
  11. Tucker R, Lambert MI, Noakes TD (2004) An analysis of pacing strategies during men’s world-record performances in track athletics. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 1:233–245Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Matthew Green
    • 1
  • Amber L. Sapp
    • 2
  • Robert C. Pritchett
    • 3
  • Phil A. Bishop
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health, Physical Education and RecreationThe University of North AlabamaFlorenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Human Performance and NutritionCentral Washington UniversityEllensburgUSA

Personalised recommendations