Running Variability in Marathon—Evaluation of the Pacing Variables
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor: This study aimed to evaluate the variability, reliability, validity, and sensitivity of pacing variables in long-distance running, utilizing data from four actual marathons. The use of real marathon data enhances the study's reliability, and the research background, design, and results are highly appraised. However, in the practical applications section, there is a need for a more concrete illustration of how the study results can be applied. The statement made, "Researchers and practitioners (i.e., running coaches and sports scientists) who aim to explore pacing in long-distance running in recreational runners should utilize ACS or CV variables in their analysis." provides a general assertion about the results. Describing how to implement this information can enhance the practical value of the study. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
Minor
1. The manuscript's reference formatting should be revised to align with the journal's guidelines.
2. Providing an overall flowchart of the study can aid in understanding the research.
3. Bold formatting and lines in Tables 2 and 3 need to be revised.
Author Response
Reviewer report 1:
This study aimed to evaluate the variability, reliability, validity, and sensitivity of pacing variables in long-distance running, utilizing data from four actual marathons. The use of real marathon data enhances the study's reliability, and the research background, design, and results are highly appraised.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for your expertise. We are very thankful for your kind words. We have tried acknowledging all the comments and raising issues to improve this manuscript further.
However, in the practical applications section, there is a need for a more concrete illustration of how the study results can be applied. The statement made, "Researchers and practitioners (i.e., running coaches and sports scientists) who aim to explore pacing in long-distance running in recreational runners should utilize ACS or CV variables in their analysis." provides a general assertion about the results. Describing how to implement this information can enhance the practical value of the study.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we have added a more specific recommendation regarding this topic.
The manuscript's reference formatting should be revised to align with the journal's guidelines.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer. We have used the Mendeley reference manager, and some references were out of the line, so we revised them.
Providing an overall flowchart of the study can aid in understanding the research.
Answer: We are thankful for the proposed improvement and have created the flowchart in Figure 1.
Bold formatting and lines in Tables 2 and 3 need to be revised.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we made some changes accordingly. Please note that journal editors made some changes to the table, including formatting
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editor and authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In the present study, the authors analyzed split data from a four-day, four-marathon running race to determine which metrics of pacing variability are sensitive, reliable, and valid to use in long-distance running. They found that there was low variability in pacing when considering average and individual data over the race stages. Additionally, the authors observed that the coefficient of variation of mean speed, absolute change in mean speed, and pace range were the most valid, sensitive, and reliable for tracking changes in pacing, while percent change in mean speed across all laps compared to the overall mean speed, percentage of mean speed change in the final 10 km compared to the first 32 km, percent change in mean speed compared to the first lap, and mid-race split (percent change in mean speed in second half compared to the first half) were not valid/sensitive/reliable measures of pacing variability. This study adds to the body of running-performance literature by putting forth variables related to pacing variability in long-distance running races. The manuscript is concise and logically structured. I have some suggestions for minor revisions prior to publication.
General comments:
- A strength of the study is the use of data collected from a multistage race that occurred under relatively controlled conditions (a flat, looping course that was the same each day), and splits for each lap were available for analysis.
- A limitation is that no anthropometric data or training histories are available.
Specific comments:
Introduction:
- Why is it important to characterize pacing variability in this race? What will the findings illuminate that would be of importance to the running community (researchers, coaches, athletes)? You helpfully explain several types of pacing strategies but do not quite adequately probe why this particular investigation is noteworthy. You allude to making a determination of variables of interest for future studies involving pacing (and state this goal more explicitly in the discussion). Your introduction would benefit from highlighting this objective.
Methods:
- The participants had a mean age greater than 55 years; therefore, the applicability of the findings to the general running public, which is on average quite a bit younger, is questionable. Please address potential concerns with examining running results among master runners; consider making note of the study sample’s age in the introduction so that the reader is alerted immediately to the fact that this study did not focus on open-age runners.
- Line 161: Please add “first” before “32 km” to clarify the meaning of the 32-10 split variable.
Results:
- Figure 1: Please report p-values on the figure in addition to the correlation coefficients.
- Figure 2: This figure is useful for illustrating that although the average pacing strategy was positive, some runners did employ even and negative pacing.
- Please do not begin sentences with an abbreviation (e.g., line 233).
- Table 3: The values in the cells for the r- and p-values for CV, Day 1, are bolded; this may be an error, as none of the other values in the table are bolded.
Discussion:
- Did you collect any data about the runners’ experience (current training habits, training history, etc.)? It would be interesting to include this data given your discussion of the long-term development of pacing strategies.
- Line 298: Please change “derivate” to “derived.”
- Section 4.2 nicely explains why certain pacing variables are better or worse suited to evaluating variability in different types of running races.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are minor issues with language/grammar throughout the manuscript, but overall, it is well written.
Author Response
Reviewer report 2:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In the present study, the authors analyzed split data from a four-day, four-marathon running race to determine which metrics of pacing variability are sensitive, reliable, and valid to use in long-distance running. They found that there was low variability in pacing when considering average and individual data over the race stages. Additionally, the authors observed that the coefficient of variation of mean speed, absolute change in mean speed, and pace range were the most valid, sensitive, and reliable for tracking changes in pacing, while percent change in mean speed across all laps compared to the overall mean speed, percentage of mean speed change in the final 10 km compared to the first 32 km, percent change in mean speed compared to the first lap, and mid-race split (percent change in mean speed in second half compared to the first half) were not valid/sensitive/reliable measures of pacing variability. This study adds to the body of running-performance literature by putting forth variables related to pacing variability in long-distance running races. The manuscript is concise and logically structured. I have some suggestions for minor revisions prior to publication.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for your expertise and kind words. We have tried acknowledging all the comments and raising issues to improve this manuscript further.
- A strength of the study is the use of data collected from a multistage race that occurred under relatively controlled conditions (a flat, looping course that was the same each day), and splits for each lap were available for analysis.
- A limitation is that no anthropometric data or training histories are available.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we added that additional limitation to the study.
Introduction:
- Why is it important to characterize pacing variability in this race? What will the findings illuminate that would be of importance to the running community (researchers, coaches, athletes)? You helpfully explain several types of pacing strategies but do not quite adequately probe why this particular investigation is noteworthy. You allude to making a determination of variables of interest for future studies involving pacing (and state this goal more explicitly in the discussion). Your introduction would benefit from highlighting this objective.
Answer: We understand the concern raised by the expert reviewer. We have already elaborated on the importance of even pacing and, consecutively, the importance of assessing the variability from that even/ideal pacing. On the other hand, we agree to elaborate more on the importance of these investigations. Therefore, we provided this important information in the final paragraph of the Introduction.
Methods:
- The participants had a mean age greater than 55 years; therefore, the applicability of the findings to the general running public, which is on average quite a bit younger, is questionable. Please address potential concerns with examining running results among master runners; consider making note of the study sample’s age in the introduction so that the reader is alerted immediately to the fact that this study did not focus on open-age runners.
Answer: We are thankful for raising this critical issue. Although our primary aim was to assess the “behavior” of the different variables to evaluate the same thing (pacing variability), we know that a bit older participants somehow limit the findings, particularly regarding the day-to-day variability. However, mentioning the sample size in the introduction, where they are essentially a part of the study methods, might be scientifically inappropriate. Therefore, we will address this issue in the discussion, section 4.1.
- Line 161: Please add “first” before “32 km” to clarify the meaning of the 32-10 split variable.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we changed that accordingly.
Results:
- Figure 1: Please report p-values on the figure in addition to the correlation coefficients.
Answer: We understand the concern raised by the expert reviewer, however, this is the mean value of the individual regressions calculated for each participant, and the p-value was not calculated here.
- Figure 2: This figure is useful for illustrating that although the average pacing strategy was positive, some runners did employ even and negative pacing.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer. Also, it highlights the fact that these participants also repeated that pacing behavior in 4 days.
- Please do not begin sentences with an abbreviation (e.g., line 233).
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we changed that accordingly.
- Table 3: The values in the cells for the r- and p-values for CV, Day 1, are bolded; this may be an error, as none of the other values in the table are bolded.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we made changes accordingly. Please note that journal editors made some table changes, including formatting.
Discussion:
- Did you collect any data about the runners’ experience (current training habits, training history, etc.)? It would be interesting to include this data given your discussion of the long-term development of pacing strategies.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer. That would be beneficial, however we did an ex post facto design (see newly added figure 1), and we did not have any additional information from the participants. We have added this as a study limitation.
- Line 298: Please change “derivate” to “derived.”
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we changed that accordingly.
- Section 4.2 nicely explains why certain pacing variables are better or worse suited to evaluating variability in different types of running races.
Answer: We agree with the expert reviewer, and we are thankful for these kind words.
There are minor issues with language/grammar throughout the manuscript, but overall, it is well written.
Answer: We are thankful for the reviewer's expertise on this paper. We additionally checked and revised the language/grammar issues.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral questions
The manuscript has merit because it has interesting and relevant results about the reliability, validity and sensitivity of the variables often used for the long-distance running pacing analyses. It has adequate theoretical justification, design, statistical analysis and discussion. However, some items need to be corrected and clarified.
Major questions
- Introduction (Line 44): Please explain in more detail the difference between the pacing strategies. The text was not understandable.
- Figure 3: the comparison of groups is not understandable, it needs to be improve. What are asterisks?
Minor questions
- References: a) initial letters of the title of the manuscript in lowercase or uppercase letter (please, standardized); b) please, the name of the periodicals is not standardized (abbreviated or in full).
Author Response
Reviewer reports:
The manuscript has merit because it has interesting and relevant results about the reliability, validity and sensitivity of the variables often used for the long-distance running pacing analyses. It has adequate theoretical justification, design, statistical analysis and discussion. However, some items need to be corrected and clarified.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for your expertise and kind words. We have tried acknowledging all the comments and raising issues to improve this manuscript further.
Major questions
- Introduction (Line 44): Please explain in more detail the difference between the pacing strategies. The text was not understandable.
Answer: We understand the concern raised by the expert reviewer, however, we believe that more detailed elaboration on pacing strategies might lengthen the introduction and decrease the readability of the manuscript. Nevertheless, we added some improvements to this part of the manuscript to improve the clarity.
- Figure 3: the comparison of groups is not understandable, it needs to be improve. What are asterisks?
Answer: We understand the concern the expert raised and have added the asterisks in the figure legend to improve readability.
Minor questions
- References: a) initial letters of the title of the manuscript in lowercase or uppercase letter (please, standardized); b) please, the name of the periodicals is not standardized (abbreviated or in full).
Answer: We understand the concern raised by the expert reviewer, however, please note that short words such as adverbs are not written in capital letters in the title. Regarding the second remark, we changed that accordingly.
