Men vs. women world marathon records' pacing strategies from 1998 to 2018.

The aim of this study was to analyse the pacing strategies adopted by elite male and female marathon runners when setting every world record since 1998. For data analysis, the total distance of the marathon was divided into eight sections of 5 km and a final section of 2.195 km, and the relative average speed of each section was calculated individually. Female athletes maintained similar speeds in the first and second half of the marathon (ES = 0.22, small effect, p = 0.705), whereas male athletes increased their speed as the marathon progressed (ES = 1.18, moderate effect, p = 0.011). However, no differences were observed between men and women in either the first (ES = 0.56, small effect, p = 0.290), or in the second half of the marathon (ES = 0.60, moderate effect, p = 0.266). When comparing the women's world records (1998-2003) vs. men's records (1998-2018) by sections, we observed differences at the beginning of the race (second section, ES = 0.89, moderate effect) and at the end (last section, ES = 0.87, moderate effect). The pace variations during the race were similar between male athletes and that of women with male pacemakers (1.53% ± 0.60 vs. 1.68% ± 0.84, respectively). However, a trend towards higher pace variations during the race in the female records with female pacemakers was observed (2.28% ± 0.95). This study shows how male and female marathon records in the last 20 years have been set using different pacing strategies. While men used a negative strategy (faster finishing), women used a less uniform pacing strategy.

Pacing and Performance in the 6 World Marathon Majors.

The main goal of this study was to analyse the pacing strategies displayed by the winners of the six World Marathon Majors in order to determine which race offers the greatest potential for future world record attempts. For data analysis, the total distance of the marathon was divided into eight sections of 5 km and a final section of 2.195 km, and time needed to complete each section was calculated in seconds. When we analyzed the mean winning time in the last 13 editions of each of the World Marathon Majors, we observed differences between New York and London (ES = 1.46, moderate effect, p = 0.0030), New York and Berlin (ES = 0.95, small effect, p = 0.0001), London and Boston (ES = 0.08, small effect, p = 0.0001), Boston and Berlin (ES = 0.10, small effect, p = 0.0001), Boston and Chicago (ES = 0.16, small effect, p = 0.0361), Berlin and Tokyo (ES = 0.20, small effect, p = 0.0034), Berlin and Chicago (ES = 0.27, small effect, p = 0.0162). This study shows that Berlin and London are likely candidates for future world record attempts, whilst such a performance is unlikely in New York or Boston.

The influence of pacing strategy on marathon world records.

The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of the pacing strategy adopted by elite marathon runners when setting every marathon world record in the last 50 years. We divided former marathon record holders into two groups: classic athletes (record holders between 1967 and 1988) and contemporaneous athletes (record holders between 1988 and 2018). The total distance of the marathon was divided into 8 sections of 5 km and 1 last section of 2.195 km, and the relative average speed of each section was calculated individually. On average athletes were slightly faster in the first half-marathon than in the second one, where they slowed down progressively (ES = 0.28, small effect). However, when comparing classic vs. contemporaneous athletes, we observed that classic athletes started significantly faster (p < .05, ES = 1.16, moderate effect), although after 25 km, their speed dropped dramatically and was significantly slower than in their contemporaneous counterparts (ES = 2.41, very large effect). This study shows that the pacing strategies of the best marathon runners in the world have changed over the last 50 years. Although a negative pace distribution has been proposed as the most efficient option, a pacing strategy characterised by very little speed changes across the whole race may be the way to go in the future.