Can plyometric training change the pacing behaviour during 10-km running?

The effects of plyometric training (PT) on middle- and long-distance running performances are well established. However, its influence on pacing behaviour is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PT on pacing behaviour. In addition, verify whether the adaptations induced by PT would change ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and/or affective feelings during the race. Twenty-eight male runners were assigned to two groups: control (C) and PT. PT held two weekly PT sessions for eight weeks. Drop jump (DJ) performance, 10-km running performance, pacing behaviour, RPE and affective feelings, VO2peak, ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), peak treadmill speed (PTS), and running economy (RE) were measured. For group comparisons, a mixed model analysis for repeated measures, effect size (ES) and 90% confidence interval (90% CI) were calculated for all dependent variables. Significant differences pre-to-post was observed for PT group in DP (7.2%; p ≤ 0.01; ES = 0.56 (0.28-0.85)) and RE (4.5%; p ≤ 0.05; ES = -0.52 ((-0.73 to -0.31)) without changes in pacing behaviour. While PT was effective for improving DJ and RE, there is no evidence that pacing behaviour, RPE or affective feelings are directly affected by these adaptations during a 10-km time trial run.

Affective Feelings and Perceived Exertion During a 10-km Time Trial and Head-to-Head Running Race.

PURPOSE: To verify the affective feelings (AFs) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) responses during a 10-km competitive head-to-head (HTH) running race and compare them with a time-trial (TT) running race. METHODS: Fourteen male runners completed 2 × 10-km runs (TT and HTH) on different days. Speed, RPE, and AF were measured every 400 m. For pacing analysis, races were divided into the following 4 stages: first 400 m (F400), 401-5000 m (M1), 5001-9600 m (M2), and the last 400 m (final sprint). RESULTS: Improvement of performance was observed (39:32 [02:41] min:s vs 40:28 [02:55] min:s; P = .03; effect size = -0.32) in HTH compared with TT. There were no differences in either pacing strategy or RPE between conditions. AFs were higher during the HTH, being different in M2 compared with TT (2.09 [1.81] vs 0.22 [2.25]; P = .02; effect size = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: AFs are directly influenced by the presence of opponents during an HTH race, and a more positive AF could be involved in the dissociation between RPE and running speed and, consequently, the overall race performance.