Restricted access

Purchase article

USD $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD $107.00

1 year subscription

USD $142.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD $203.00

2 year subscription

USD $265.00

Background: Pacing studies suggest the distribution of effort for optimizing performance. Cross-sectional studies of 1-mile world records (WRs) suggest that WR progression includes a smaller coefficient of variation of velocity. Purpose: This study evaluates whether intraindividual pacing used by elite runners to break their own WR (1 mile, 5 km, and 10 km) is related to the evolution of pacing strategy. We provide supportive data from analysis in subelite runners. Methods: Men’s WR performances (with 400-m or 1-km splits) in 1 mile, 5 km, and 10 km were retrieved from the IAAF database (from 1924 to present). Data were analyzed relative to pacing pattern when a runner improved their own WR. Similar analyses are presented for 10-km performance in subelite runners before and after intensified training. Results: WR performance was improved in 1 mile (mean [SD]: 3:59.4 [11.2] to 3:57.2 [8.6]), 5 km (13:27 [0:33] to 13:21 [0:33]), and 10 km (28:35 [1:27] to 28:21 [1:21]). The average coefficient of variation did not change in the 1 mile (3.4% [1.8%] to 3.6% [1.6%]), 5 km (2.4% [0.9%] to 2.2% [0.8%]), or 10 km (1.4% [0.1%] to 1.5% [0.6%]) with improved WR. When velocity was normalized to the percentage mean velocity for each race, the pacing pattern was almost identical. Very similar patterns were observed in subelite runners in the 10 km. When time improved from 49:20 (5:30) to 45:56 (4:58), normalized velocity was similar, terminal RPE increased (8.4 [1.6] to 9.1 [0.8]), coefficient of variation was unchanged (4.4% [1.1%] to 4.8% [2.1%]), and VO2max increased (49.8 [7.4] to 55.3 [8.8] mL·min−1·kg−1). Conclusion: The results suggest that when runners break their own best performances, they employ the same pacing pattern, which is different from when WRs are improved in cross-sectional data.

Foster is with the Dept of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA. de Koning and Porcari are with the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA. de Koning and Versteeg are with VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Thiel is with the University of Applied Sciences—Bochum, Bochum, Germany. Boullosa is with Catholic University—Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. Bok is with the University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Foster ( is corresponding author.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Article Sections
  • 1.

    Joyner MCoyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of champions. J Physiol. 2008;586:3544. PubMed ID: 17901124 doi:

  • 2.

    Abbiss CRLaursen PB. Describing and understanding pacing strategy during athletic competition. Sports Med. 2008;38:239252 PubMed ID: 18278984 doi:

  • 3.

    Thiel CFoster CBanzer WDe Koning J. Pacing in Olympic track races: competitive tactics versus best performance strategy. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:11071115. PubMed ID: 22738897 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    de Koning JJFoster CLucia ABobbert MFHettinga FJPorcari JP. Using modeling to understand how athletes in different disciplines solve the same problem: swimming versus running versus speed skating. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011;6:276280. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Foster Cde Koning JJThiel C. Evolutionary patterns of improved 1-mile running performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9:715719. PubMed ID: 24509568 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Patton CDHopkins WG. Competition performance of elite Olympic distance triathletes: reliability and smallest worthwhile enhancement. Sportscience. 2005;9:1720.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Aftalion ABonnans JF. Optimization of running strategies based on anaerobic energy and variations in velocity. SIAM J Appl Math. 2014;74:16151636. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Article Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 317 317 71
Full Text Views 23 23 8
PDF Downloads 24 24 3
Altmetric Badge
Google Scholar