Study note • PMID 21941007
The effect of a second runner on pacing strategy and RPE during a running time trial.
How to use this page
This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.
- • Design signal: controlled study.
- • Population relevance: athlete/trained context.
- • Consistency: single-study evidence.
- • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.
ELI5
In plain language
The aim of this study was to examine performance, pacing strategy and perception of effort during a 5 km time trial while running with or without the presence of… (controlled study; n=11 elite runners).
The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: The aim of this study was to examine performance, pacing strategy and perception of effort during a 5 km time trial while running with or without the presence of…
- • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance under the tested conditions.
- • Population: n=11 elite runners.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 5 km.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: pacing, rpe.
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 5 km.
- • Outcomes: Time-trial performance.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it may help, and who should be cautious
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (n=11 elite runners) working on pacing.
- • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should be cautious
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: controlled study.
- • Population: n=11 elite runners.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 5 km.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 21941007 (2012) — International journal of sports physiology and performance.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“There was no significant difference in performance times, heart rate or RPE between any of the five trials.”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations and bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Adaptive AI coach for iPhone
Meet your adaptive AI coach.
Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research summaries for endurance athletes, with study context, practical protocols, and clear limitations.
Open guidePacing performance research
Pacing is applied physiology: the best plan fails if you spend your budget early.
Open guideTime-trial performance research for endurance athletes
Practical performance outcome used in many studies: closer to racing than lab-only metrics.
Open guide