Skip to content

Study note

The pacing differences in performance levels of marathon and half-marathon runners.

PMID 38187410 (2023): pacing, even pacing — Time-trial performance (study note for endurance athletes).

Updated Jul 22, 2026

Read the study note

Study note • PMID 38187410

The pacing differences in performance levels of marathon and half-marathon runners.

Frontiers in psychology2023 • DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1273451

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: mixed/unclear athlete specificity.
  • Consistency: single-study evidence.
  • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.

ELI5

In plain language

INTRODUCTION: Many studies indicate a considerable impact of optimal pacing on long-distance running performance. (controlled study; n=75 runners).

Effects on Time-trial performance are mixed or unclear from the abstract alone. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: INTRODUCTION: Many studies indicate a considerable impact of optimal pacing on long-distance running performance.
  • Effects on Time-trial performance are mixed or unclear from the abstract alone.
  • Population: n=75 runners.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 195 km.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: pacing, even pacing.
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 195 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=75 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=75 runners.
  • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 195 km.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 38187410 (2023) — Frontiers in psychology.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

Positive pacing strategies (i.e., decrease of speed) were observed in all performance groups of both sex and race.

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

Sources