| pubmed-article:467415 | pubmed:abstractText | Three possible patterns of pacing (type 1, fast/slow; type 2, slow/fast; and type 3, steady rate) were compared over a 1400 m, 4 min run. The subsequent running time to exhaustion at 370 m . min-1 was significantly longer with a type 1 than with a type 2 protocol (P less than 0.05). The steady rate pattern gave results intermediate between type 1 and type 2 pacing. Data for oxygen debt and recovery heart rate confirmed the superiority of type 1 pacing. Possible explanations included (1) a reduction of inefficient anaerobic work, and (2) a greater mechanical efficiency associated with the better matching of required effort to a tapering physiological power. Runners should aim at a steady physiological rather than a steady physical load. | lld:pubmed |
