Ways to Make Running This Winter More Enjoyable The point that, by Brian Hanley of Leeds Metropolitan University in Britain, analyzes pacing patterns for runners at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships. He took lap times from every competitor in the senior men's races from 10 editions of the championships between 2002 and 2013, and expressed lap times as a percentage of the eventual winner's lap time. Here's what the data ended up looking like:
Pretty much everyone, including the eventual silver and bronze medalists, starts fast and tries to stick with the leader, then falls progressively farther behind as the race proceeds. Bear in mind that these are, in theory, the world's best runners, who have plenty of experience and should be able to pace themselves optimally. So what's going on? As the authors put it:
It has been suggested that this tactic of following rivals’ behaviours in endurance events is taken because it appears to be the easiest decision to make where rewards are based on finishing position rather than time (Renfree & St Clair Gibson, 2013), because many athletes have unrealistic perceptions of their athletic ability (Abbiss & Laursen, 2008) and because of a possible wind shielding effect (Hanley et al., 2011).
As the first point notes, the rewards in cross-country are all about place rather than time (unlike in track), which perhaps makes it more likely that the runners gauge their effort off of their competitors rather than off splits (which in this case would be non-existent). But I suspect the second point, regarding unrealistic perceptions of athletic ability, is the bigger factor. But that raises another question: is this a bad thing? Hanley mostly takes for granted that this sort of pacing represents an "error" for everyone except the eventual winner. His abstract concludes: "Athletes should note that a patient approach during the early stages can benefit not only the mass field but also those who aim to win a medal."
That seems very logical, but the data doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about whether it's actually true. Would the mid-pack runner do better by going out more slowly and gradually moving up throughout the race; or would the feeling of being totally left behind after the first lap or two be so demoralizing that he would end up with a worse performance? Would the bronze medalist finish higher if he went out more slowly instead of sticking with the leaders; or would he find it impossible to get back to the lead pack after letting them get away early in the race? I don't know the answer to either question, and I suspect there isn't a single answer -- it depends on the runner and the competition and the circumstances. But Hanley's analysis does a nice job of showing that most of the runners end up a long way from even or "optimal" pacing.
One other, more technical note. In exercise physiology studies, there's a big debate about whether it's better to test performance with "time trial" (TT) or "time-to-exhaustion" (TTE) test. In the former, it's basically like a solo race in the lab, with the subject covering a set distance in the quickest time possible. In the latter, you run (or bike or whatever) for as long as possible at a set pace (or power) until you can no longer continue. TTE tests are much more sensitive to small changes in fitness, but many scientists feel they don't have "ecological validity" -- that is, they don't replicate what athletes do in the real world. In that view, there are crucial differences between the mental and physical demands of TT and TTE tests, so that an intervention that improves TTE performances might not translate into an improvement in TT (and thus real-life racing) performance.
The point that Health & Injuries made when he saw this study is that, for all except the winner, real-life races like World Cross Country often play out much more like time-to-exhaustion tests than time trials. Sure, most of the runners didn't drop out when they got tired -- but they basically ran for as long as they could at the winner's pace, and then gradually slowed down. So maybe TTE tests do have some ecological validity after all.
***
Read All About the Run/Walk Method, and follow the latest posts via Twitter, Facebook, or RSS.
