Performance prediction, pacing profile and running pattern of elite 1-h track running events

Purpose This study aimed at comparing the predictive accuracy of the power law (PL), 2-parameter hyperbolic (HYP) and linear (LIN) models on elite 1-h track running performance, and evaluating pacing profile and running pattern of the men’s best two 1-h track running performances of all times. Metho...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sport sciences for health 2022-12, Vol.18 (4), p.1457-1474
Main Authors: Girardi, Michele, Gattoni, Chiara, Sponza, Luca, Marcora, Samuele Maria, Micklewright, Dominic
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Athletes
Coaches & managers
Data analysis
Endurance
Human Physiology
Marathons
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Metabolic Diseases
Original Article
Running
Sports Medicine
Track & field
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose This study aimed at comparing the predictive accuracy of the power law (PL), 2-parameter hyperbolic (HYP) and linear (LIN) models on elite 1-h track running performance, and evaluating pacing profile and running pattern of the men’s best two 1-h track running performances of all times. Methods The individual running speed–distance profile was obtained for nine male elite runners using the three models. Different combinations of personal bests times (3000 m-marathon) were used to predict performance. The level of absolute agreement between predicted and actual performance was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), paired t test and Bland–Altman analysis. A video analysis was performed to assess pacing profile and running pattern. Results Regardless of the predictors used, no significant differences ( p  > 0.05) between predicted and actual performances were observed for the PL model. A good agreement was found for the HYP and LIN models only when the half-marathon was the longest event predictor used (ICC = 0.718–0.737, p  
ISSN:1824-7490
1825-1234
DOI:10.1007/s11332-022-00945-w