Study note • PMID 21941007
The effect of a second runner on pacing strategy and RPE during a running time trial.
Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.
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 helps, and who should skip it
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 skip
- • 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 & 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.
Coaching beta
Get a plan that adapts to your life.
Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research-backed protocols and evidence grades for endurance performance — built for athletes.
Pacing performance research
Pacing is applied physiology: the best plan fails if you spend your budget early.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.
Time-trial performance research for endurance athletes
Practical performance outcome used in many studies: closer to racing than lab-only metrics.