Study note • PMID 42467613
Pacing strategy patterns and performance outcomes in marathon running: A large-scale analysis of split time data.
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
Although pacing strategy is widely recognized as critical for marathon performance, the actual distribution of pacing patterns among recreational runners and their associations with finish time across demographic groups… (controlled study; recreational runners).
The abstract reports an association involving Time-trial performance (not necessarily causation). Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: Although pacing strategy is widely recognized as critical for marathon performance, the actual distribution of pacing patterns among recreational runners and their associations with finish time across demographic groups…
- • The abstract reports an association involving Time-trial performance (not necessarily causation).
- • Population: recreational runners.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 276 minutes.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: pacing (vs comparison group).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 276 minutes.
- • 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 (recreational 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: recreational runners.
- • Comparator: comparison group.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 276 minutes.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 42467613 (2026) — PloS one.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“Even-pacing was consistently associated with the fastest finish times across age and performance strata (p < 0.001), with mean finish times markedly lower than those observed for strong positive-splitting (217 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.
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.