4.3 Article

Pacing Profiles of Middle-Distance Running World Records in Men and Women

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312589

Keywords

pacing; middle-distance running; world record; athletics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the pacing patterns of all-time 800m, 1500m, and mile running world records, finding no significant differences in pacing strategies between sexes. It was observed that women were more likely to break world records during championships than men.
The aims of the current study were to compare the pacing patterns of all-time 800 m, 1500 m and mile running world records (WRs) and to determine whether differences exist between sexes, and if 800 m and 1500 m WRs were broken during championship or meet races. Overall and lap times for men and women's 800 m, 1500 m, and mile WRs from World Athletics were collected when available and subsequently compared. A fast initial 200 m segment and a decrease in speed throughout was found during 800 m WRs. Accordingly, the first 200 m and 400 m were faster than the last 200 m and 400 m, respectively (p < 0.001, 0.77 <= ES <= 1.86). The first 400 m and 409 m for 1500 m and mile WRs, respectively, were faster than the second lap (p < 0.001, 0.74 <= ES <= 1.46). The third 400 m lap was slower than the last 300 m lap and 400 m lap for 1500 m and mile WRs, respectively (p < 0.001, 0.48 <= ES <= 1.09). No relevant sex-based differences in pacing strategy were found in any event. However, the first 409 m lap was faster than the last 400 m lap for men but not for women during mile WRs. Women achieved a greater % of WRs than men during championships (80% vs. 45.83% in the 800 m, and 63.63% vs. 31.58% in the 1500 m, respectively). In conclusion, positive, reverse J-shaped and U-shaped pacing profiles were used to break 800 m, men's mile and 1500 m, and women's mile WRs, respectively. WRs are more prone to be broken during championships by women than men.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available