Study note • PMID 30988850
The Differences in Pacing Among Age Groups of Amateur Cross-Country Skiers Depend on Performance.
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
Pacing strategies have mainly been investigated for runners, but little is known for cross-country skiers. (controlled study; n=19 runners).
The abstract suggests a trade-off or negative effect affecting Time-trial performance. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: Pacing strategies have mainly been investigated for runners, but little is known for cross-country skiers.
- • The abstract suggests a trade-off or negative effect affecting Time-trial performance.
- • Population: n=19 runners.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 42 km • 10 km • 20 km • 35 km • 3 km.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: pacing (vs comparison group).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 42 km • 10 km • 20 km • 35 km • 3 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=19 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=19 runners.
- • Comparator: comparison group.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 42 km • 10 km • 20 km • 35 km • 3 km.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 30988850 (2019) — Journal of human kinetics.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“Men were faster than women by +14.3% (15.2 +/- 4.0 vs.”
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 guideCaffeine 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.
Open guide