EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS AND SEX ON PACING IN
MARATHON RUNNERS
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
NICHOLAS W. TRUBEE,1 PAUL M. VANDERBURGH,1 WIEBKE S. DIESTELKAMP,1,2
KURT J. JACKSON1
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023
Departments of 1Health and Sport Science and 2Mathematics, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
ABSTRACT
Trubee, NW, Vanderburgh, PM, Diestelkamp, WS, and
Jackson, KJ. Effects of heat stress and sex on pacing in
marathon runners. J Strength Cond Res 28(6): 1673–1678,
2014—Recent research suggests that women tend to exhibit
less of a precipitous decline in run velocity during the latter
stages of a marathon than men when the covariates of age
and run time are controlled for. The purpose of this study
was to examine this sex effect with the added covariate of heat
stress on pacing, defined as the mean velocity of the last 12.2
km divided by the mean velocity of the first 30 km. A secondary
purpose of this investigation was to compare the pacing pro-
files of the elite men and women runners and the pacing pro-
files of the elite and nonelite runners. Subjects included
22,990 men and 13,233 women runners from the 2007 and
2009 Chicago marathons for which the mean ambient temper-
atures were 26.678 C and 2.778 C, respectively. Each 5-km
split time was measured via an electronic chip worn on the
participants’ shoe. Multiple regression analysis indicated that
age, sex, heat stress, and overall finish time (p , 0.01 for each)
were simultaneous independent elements of pacing. Nonelite
women were consistently better pacers than nonelite men in
both marathons, and this sex difference was magnified from
cold to warm race temperatures. No difference (p , 0.05) in
pacing was found between elite men and women runners.
Elite men and women had enhanced pacing over their non-
elite counterparts. In hotter temperatures, coaches of novice
runners should advise their athletes to implement a slower
initial velocity to maintain or increase running velocity later
in the race.
KEY WORDS ambient temperature, velocity, split time, pace
index
Address correspondence to Nicholas W. Trubee, nick.trubee@
gmail.com.
28(6)/1673–1678
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
INTRODUCTION
T
he effect of ambient temperature on athletic per-
formance has been extensively investigated
(2–4,8,11,12,14,21,22). Some studies examined
the impact of environmental heat on variability
in running velocity (10–12) and the increase in internal body
temperature (2,8,14) during competition. In general, as envi-
ronmental and internal body temperatures increased, the
ability of endurance runners to maintain a consistent running
velocity was impaired, leading to a significant decrease in
race velocity (10–12) or drop out (3,22). Research has sug-
gested that a consistent running velocity throughout the race
produced faster overall performances (1,12,17,19). This was
found to be most effective during longer distances, such as
the marathon, in both cooler and warmer temperatures (12).
Pacing strategies in general have been examined for both
cycling and running events. For cycling, research findings
suggest that adopting a slower road velocity during the early
stages of the race led to faster finish times for the 20-km
distance (20) and even the 2-km distance (13). In these cases,
slower velocities were those when compared with the mean
race velocity. Interestingly, for the 5-km run race, Gosztyla
et al. (15) determined that a 6% faster first mile (1.6 km),
when compared with mean run velocity for the entire race,
led to faster overall run times than slower first miles. Ely
et al. (12) researched pacing for 219 elite women runners
over multiple years of different Asian marathons (42.2 km).
Results indicated that race winners displayed a close to even
pacing profile throughout the initial 40 km and that the 25th,
50th, and 100th place finishers showed a nonlinear decline in
running velocity from their initial 5 km. They also reported
that an increase in race temperature was accompanied by
a decrease in running velocity for both faster and slower
runners. Conversely, in races that were held in cooler
weather conditions, faster runners were able to maintain
a more even running velocity compared with their slower
competitors.
Although elite men outperform elite women in distance
runs, little is known about sex effects on pacing in such races
for nonelite runners. March et al. (19) examined pacing in
319 nonelite marathoners who ran the same race under cool
ambient conditions on a flat 1.6-km loop course. Pacing in
this case was defined as the mean velocity of the last 9.7 km
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1673
 Heat and Sex Effects on Marathon Pacing

TABLE 1. Runners descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD).

Men Hot (n = 7,391) Men Cool (n = 12,663) Women Hot (n = 4,191) Women Cool (n = 7,877)

Age (y) 37.53 6 9.48 37.35 6 10.06 33.65 6 8.36 33.60 6 8.66
4:15:11 6 31:56 3:57:16 6 33:43 4:24:09 6 25:54 4:15:00 6 28:12
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Finish time
Pace index 0.79 6 0.09 0.91 6 0.09 0.85 6 0.08 0.94 6 0.07
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023

divided by the mean velocity of the first 32.5 km. Results condition when compared with the cold. A secondary purpose
suggested that nonelite women were better pacers than non- of this investigation was to compare the pacing profiles of the
elite men, even after controlling for age, sex, and finish time. elite men and women runners, in addition to the pacing profiles
The research literature has offered some insight as to of the elite and nonelite runners. We hypothesized that there
mechanisms by which women might be better pacers than would be no difference in pacing between the elite men and
men though the key causal link has yet to be established. women marathoners and that elite runners would be superior
Speechly et al. (25) found, when grouping men and women pacers compared with novice runners.
based on equal finish times from a previous marathon,
women were able to perform at a higher percentage of their METHODS
V_ O2max than their men counterparts at marathon velocities.
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Loftin et al. (18) corroborated this trend for 20 middle-aged
All data for this study were obtained from the Bank of America
marathoners such that women ran at 76.3% of their V_ O2max
Chicago Marathon Web site (http://www.chicagomarathon.
compared with 67.7% for men on a 1-hour treadmill run at
com/cms400min/chicago_marathon/), which included
recent marathon pace. All V_ O2 values were measured with
subject age, sex, 5-km split time, and overall finish time. This
the use of a metabolic cart in the aforementioned investiga-
marathon was chosen for its large sample size, flat course, and
tions. Others (7,23,26) reported that women tended toward
large mean ambient temperature difference between its 2007
a lower respiratory exchange ratio (RER) than men during
and 2009 events: 26.678 C and 2.778 C for the 2007 and 2009
submaximal endurance exercise, suggesting a preference for
marathons, respectively (http://weather.org/weatherorg_
oxidizing fat for energy whereas sparing glycogen. This, in
records_and_averages.htm).
turn, can delay “hitting the wall,” a phenomenon where
glycogen stores in the body are depleted (5,9,23,26), thus Subjects
contributing to the characteristic precipitous decrease in The sample included 11,581 and 20,540 runners (18 – 75
run velocity. Women also tend to have a larger surface years of age) from the 2007 and 2009 marathons, respec-
area-to-mass ratio than men (8,16,24), allowing them to dis- tively, not counting runners who ran both races, a necessary
sipate a larger percentage of
heat produced because of run-
ning. To our knowledge, no
empirical research has evalu-
ated the sex effect on marathon
pacing in cold vs. hot ambient
conditions, when controlling
for age and finish time. There-
fore, the purpose of this inves-
tigation was to examine the
influences of sex, age, and fin-
ish time on marathon pacing in
nonelite marathon runners
across 2 different dates, corre-
sponding to 1 cool and 1 hot
race temperature. We hypothe-
sized that the sex advantage
favoring nonelite women would Figure 1. Mean running velocity by 5 km and sex.
be magnified in the hot race
the TM

1674 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

condition for multiple regres-

sion analysis. The descriptive
data for these subjects are
shown in Table 1. The Univer-
sity’s institutional review board
granted approval for this study
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

and approved the waiver of

informed consent because these
data are in the public domain.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023

For a participant to be included

in this study, all 5-km split times
and the overall finish time must
have been recorded, and finish
times were less than 5 hours.
This time cutoff was selected
because a 5-hour marathon Figure 2. Mean running velocity by 5 km and finish time tertile (T1, T2, and T3).
correlated to an average run
velocity of 2.33 m$s21 (approx-
imately 11:30 min$mile21 or
5.2 mph), a pace described by March et al. (19) to be a pace the impact of age, sex, heat stress, and overall finish time on
difficult to walk. This method ensured that all runners pacing. Key 2-way interactions involving heat stress were
included in the study ran the majority of the race. assessed to account for the effect that an independent
variable on pacing may depend on the level of another
Procedures
independent variable. Independent samples t-tests were also
The course consisted of 42.2 km (26.2 miles) with digital
conducted between the elite (top 25) and the nonelite (those
clocks set at every mile marker to facilitate accurate self-
outside of the top 25) men and women runners. No analyses
pacing as desired. At each 5-km checkpoint, each runner’s
were conducted on the repeat runners because the hot race
shoe-worn chips crossed a digital receiver, recording split
occurred first and a significant learning effect on overall run
times. The cooler mean ambient temperature (2.778 C) and
velocity and pacing would have been likely.
flat landscape of the 2009 marathon was similar to the study
by March et al. (19) in that the change in pacing because of
hyperthermia was not likely. However, the warmer temper- RESULTS
ature in 2007 (26.678 C) would likely impair pacing and over- In the multiple regression analysis, age, sex, finish time, and
all run performance (12,22). heat stress were each statistically significant (p , 0.01) de-
Pacing was defined as the mean velocity of the last 12.2 terminants of pacing with all 4 in the model. Figures 1–3
km (7.6 miles) divided by the mean velocity of the first 30 km depict the effects of age, sex, finish time, and heat stress on
(18.6 miles). March et al. (19) used a similar pacing index pacing (age and finish time shown by tertiles) by 5-km split
where the mean velocity of the
last 9.7 km was divided by the
first 32.5 km. This method was
used because glycogen deple-
tion during the marathon often
occurs at approximately 3
hours or 30 km for the nonelite
marathoner, leading to a notice-
able decline in running velocity
(6,9,26). By calculating the
change in running velocity over
time, we were able to focus on
the change in pacing during the
latter stage of the race.
Statistical Analyses
Stepwise multiple linear regres-
sion was used on the 32,121 Figure 3. Mean running velocity by 5 km and age tertile (T1, T2, and T3).
nonrepeat runners to evaluate

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1675

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Heat and Sex Effects on Marathon Pacing

dent variable differences: men vs. women, 25 vs. 55 years of

age, 3 hours vs. 4.5 hours finish time, and hot vs. cool run-
TABLE 2. Two-way interactions involving heat
stress (% difference). ning temperature. As an example, because 25 vs. 55 years of
age is an age difference of 30 years, we multiplied 30 by the
Cold (%) Hot (%) p age coefficient of 0.000223 to produce an effect of 0.0067, or
0.67% on pacing, independent of the effects of sex, heat
Sex 3 heat
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

3.02 7.53 0.0000

Finish time 3 heat 10.53 12.18 0.0002 stress, and finish time. Described differently, the effect of
Age 3 heat 12.12 13.00 0.0152 being 30 years older rendered a 0.67% increase in pacing.
Similarly, the effect of being women and faster translated to
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023

a 5.09 and 6.40% increase in pacing, respectively. The great-

times. Figure 1 shows the marked decrease in running veloc-
ity in men is greater than that of women. A larger decrease in
pacing is indicated in Figure 2, as those runners with slower
finish times (T2: finish time of 3:40:18–4:07:35; hot n = 1923
and cool n = 4,215; T3: finish time of $4:07:36; hot n =
9,134 and cool n = 10,195) seem to be less able to sustain
a consistent running velocity in the latter part of the race
compared with those with faster finish times (T1: finish time
of #3:40:17; hot n = 1,708 and cool n = 5,898). Figure 3
suggests that the age effect on pacing is small but the differ-
ence in run velocity between younger and older runners is
consistent throughout both races.
The equation developed from the multiple regression
analysis can be beneficial when interpreting the magnitudes
of effects. Using the same method as that of March et al. (19)
and the resulting prediction equation with pacing as the
dependent variable, we calculated each term (coefficient 3
independent variable difference) for the following indepen-
est effect on pacing was heat stress, which caused an inde-
pendent decrease of 9.18% in pacing by the runners.
Including all key heat stress interactions in the model, all 3
were significant (p # 0.05): finish time 3 heat stress, age 3
heat stress, and sex 3 heat stress. The direction of the dif-
ference in pacing among all interactions was consistent and
can be seen in Table 2. A finish time by heat stress interac-
tion denotes that heat had an overall deleterious effect on
pacing such that, as runners get slower, heat had a slightly
greater effect on pacing. The interaction between age and
heat stress indicates that the age difference on pacing
increased from cool to warm temperatures. However, this
difference was quite small. The third interaction, sex 3 heat
stress, indicated that the women’s superiority in pacing over
men increased from the cold to the hot racing conditions.
The independent samples t-tests concerning pace index
indicated statistical differences (p # 0.05) between elite run-
ners and nonelite runners for both men and women and can
be seen in Table 3. However, comparisons between elite men
and elite women displayed no difference in pacing (p .
0.05). Elite men and women tended to have enhanced pac-
ing over their nonelite counterparts for both hot and cool
racing conditions.

DISCUSSION
TABLE 3. Independent samples t-tests between The principle finding of this study is that nonelite women’s
elite and nonelite runners.
pacing superiority over nonelite men magnified from the
Average pace cool to the warm race temperatures, when age and finish
index (SD) t p time are controlled for. In fact, women runners among all
ages and finish times show a trend for better pacing than
Men men in both the 2007 and 2009 marathon. This may be
Elite (hot) 0.91 (0.04) 26.96 ,0.0001
Nonelite (hot) 0.79 (0.09) because of the finding that women have shown a tendency
Elite (cool) 0.96 (0.05) 22.57 0.010 to spare more glycogen and oxidize fat for energy because of
Nonelite (cool) 0.90 (0.09) a lower RER at submaximal intensities (7,23,26,27).
Women The larger difference in pacing between novice men and
Elite (hot) 0.90 (0.05) 23.04 0.002 women in warmer temperatures may also be because of the
Nonelite (hot) 0.85 (0.08)
Elite (cool) 0.97 (0.05) 22.36 0.018 finding that women generally have a larger surface area-to-
Nonelite (cool) 0.93 (0.07) mass ratio than men (8,16,24). Because heat production via
Elite exercise is proportional to body mass and heat loss is a func-
Men (hot) 0.91 (0.04) 1.07 0.289 tion of body surface area, women runners should be able to
Women (hot) 0.90 (0.05) dissipate a higher percentage of excess heat generated owing
Men (cool) 0.95 (0.05) 21.14 0.260
Women (cool) 0.97 (0.05) to running. Men, then, would likely fatigue earlier because of
the relatively greater thermoregulatory challenge (14) and
display the markedly slower running velocities in late stages
of the race.
the TM

1676 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

As indicated in Tables 1 and 2, finish time and pace
exhibited significantly worse scores from cold to hot race
conditions, congruent with previous findings (2–4,8,14). Of
note, however, is the fact that the overall effect of the heat
in the 2007 race cannot be characterized because race offi-
cials called off the race for those runners who did not reach
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
the halfway point by 3 hours and 35 minutes, thus leading
to just over 10,000 runners not finishing the race. As a result,
because the nonfinishers are the slower runners who would
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023
have been on the course longer as the ambient temperature
continued to rise, the effects of heat stress on marathon
performance, including pacing, are likely underestimated
in this study. In fact, Roberts (22) concluded that the
2007 Chicago marathon should have been cancelled before
the start of the race because of high temperatures on the
morning of the race. Although heat seems to be the likely
cause for the drop in performance, other variables such as
running experience, training level, and weather acclimation
may have an additive effect to this phenomenon as well.
Based on the archival nature of the data, we could not
determine if these variables played a role in the decreased
pace indexes and increased finish times. On the contrary,
the topography of the race course was deemed unfit as
a potential variable possible of affecting pacing because
of minimal elevation changes, particularly during the last
12.2 km. The remaining 12.2 km included 2 minor climbs
with the larger of the 2 being 5.5 m of elevation change
spanning one-half mile. The largest decent during the fin-
ishing 12.2 km was 4.3 m ranging nearly one-half mile as
well. The final 4.8 km was the most constant in terms of
elevation with 61.2 m of grade change. These data were
collected via the USA Track and Field course mapping Web
site (http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/).
Comparisons of the 2009 cooler race data with those of
March et al. (19) suggest some similar findings. The current
study found that, when running in cooler temperatures, non-
elite women had a 4.14% increase in pacing, whereas the
aforementioned study found a 4.06% increase in pacing by
being women. Being faster in cooler temperatures also trans-
lated to a 5.94% increase in pacing, whereas March et al.
found that being faster lead to a 10.71% increase. The effect
of age, however, differed in magnitude with March et al.
reporting a 7.3% increase in pacing for being older and this
study, indicating a smaller 0.91% increase for the same age
range. Because the race for the study by March et al. was
considered a qualifying race for the popular Boston mara-
thon, one might speculate that its runners gave a more max-
imal effort, thus eliciting a greater chance of an age effect on
pacing, if present. The Chicago marathon is much larger and
may have many more recreational runners more interested
in finishing than competing.
The decrease in running velocity in the heat is seen in
Figures 1–3, negatively affecting age and sex similarly. This
decline is seen as early as the 15-km mark and is more severe
as the race progresses. There was, however, a trend for an
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
increase in pace among all groups in both temperatures from
the 40-km mark to the finish. This may have been caused by
additional motivation to complete the task when runners are
nearly finished with the race. A similar occurrence was stud-
ied by Ely et al. (12) where the term “end spurt” was used to
explain the increase in pace in the latter stages of a race.
No statistical difference (p . 0.05) was found in pacing
between elite men and women runners for both temperature
conditions. In elite marathoners, pacing between men and
women were virtually identical, with indexes of 0.91 and 0.90
in the heat and between 0.95 and 0.97 in cool race temper-
atures, respectively. However, when pacing was compared
between elite runners and their nonelite counterparts, statistical
differences were discovered (p # 0.05) and can be seen in Table
3. The use of these comparisons was important when making
conclusions concerning the pacing differences between men
and women runners. When interpreting pacing superiority
between sexes, differences can only be seen between the non-
elite runners and should not be extrapolated to the elite runner.
In conclusion, the results from the current investigation
match those of March et al. (19) in that nonelite women tend
to be better marathon pacers than nonelite men when age
and finish time are controlled for. The addition of heat stress
in this study magnified this sex difference. Although this
finding is associated with physiologic mechanisms involving
sex, glycogen sparing, and thermoregulation, future studies
should elucidate causal effects and the extent to which the
psychosocial effects of sex may influence marathon pacing.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this investigation indicate that a consistent
running velocity has been shown to produce faster perform-
ances by marathoners. The findings of this study also show
that the detrimental effect of heat on pacing should be taken
into consideration when preparing for a marathon. Nonelite
and novice men and women runners may consider using the
pacing strategies of the elite runners when planning a race
strategy for hotter temperatures to enhance performance. In
hotter temperatures, coaches of these runners should advise
their athletes to implement a slightly slower initial velocity in
an attempt to maintain or increase running velocity in the
latter stages of the race. Running at a slightly slower initial
velocity may be used as a technique to maintain internal
body temperature and to spare glycogen in an effort to
improve pacing and running velocity late in the race. Novice
runners attempting to enhance marathon performance
should use consistent pacing as this has produced faster
running times at both the elite and nonelite marathon levels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The current study was not supported by any funding
sources. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
The results of this study do not constitute endorsement of
any product by the authors or the National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1677
 Heat and Sex Effects on Marathon Pacing
REFERENCES
1. Abbiss, CR and Laursen, PB. Describing and understanding pacing
strategies during athletic competition. Sports Med 38: 239–252, 2008.
2. Adams, WC, Fox, RH, Fry, AJ, and MacDonald, IC. Thermoregulation
during marathon running in cool, moderate, and hot environments.
J Appl Physiol 38: 1030–1037, 1975.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
3. Armstrong, LE, Casa, DJ, Millard-Stafford, M, Moran, DS,
Payne, SW, and Roberts, WO. American college of sports medicine
position stand: Exertional heat illness during training and
competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 556–572, 2007.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/05/2023
4. Armstrong, LE, Epstein, Y, Greenleaf, JE, Haymes, EM,
Hubbard, RW, Roberts, WO, and Thompson, PD. American college
of sports medicine position stand: heat and cold illnesses during
distance running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 39–60, 1996.
5. Buman, MP, Brewer, BW, Cornelious, AE, Van Raalte, JL, and
Petitpas, AJ. Hitting the wall in the marathon: phenomenological
characteristics and associations with expectancey, gender, and
running history. Psychol Sport Exerc 9: 177–190, 2008.
6. Cade, R, Packer, D, Zauner, C, Kaufmann, D, Peterson, J, Mars, D,
Privette, M, Hommen, N, Fregly, MJ, and Rogers, J. Marathon
running: physiological and chemical changes accompanying late-
race functional deterioration. Eur J Appl Physiol 65: 485–491, 1992.
7. Carter, SL, Rennie, C, and Tarnopolsky, MA. Substrate utilization
during endurance exercise in men and women after endurance
training. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 280: E898–E907, 2001.
8. Cheuvront, SN and Haymes, EM. Thermoregulation and marathon
running. Sports Med 31: 743–762, 2001.
9. Coyle, EF. Physiological regulation of marathon performance. Sports
Med 37: 306–311, 2007.
10. Ely, MR, Cheuvront, SN, and Montain, SJ. Neither cloud cover nor
low solar loads are associated with fast marathon performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 39: 2029–2035, 2007.
11. Ely, MR, Cheuvront, SN, Roberts, WO, and Montain, SJ. Impact
of weather on marathon-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc
39: 487–493, 2007.
12. Ely, MR, Martin, DE, Cheuvront, SN, and Montain, SJ. Effect of
ambient temperature on marathon pacing is dependent on runner
ability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 1675–1680, 2008.
13. Foster, C, Snyder, AC, Thompson, NN, Green, MA, Foley, M, and
Schrager, M. Effect of pacing strategy on cycle time trial
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 383–388, 1993.
the TM
1678 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
14. Gonzalez-Alonso, J, Teller, C, Anderson, SL, Jensen, FB, Hyldig, T,
and Nielsen, B. Influence of body temperature on the development
of fatigue during prolonged exercise in the heat. J Appl Physiol 86:
1032–1039, 1999.
15. Gosztyla, AE, Edwards, DG, Quinn, TJ, and Kenefick, RW. The
impact of different pacing strategies on five-kilometer running time
trial performances. J Strength Conditioning Res 20: 882–886, 2006.
16. Kaciuba-Uscilko, H and Grucza, R. Gender differences in
thermoregulation. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 4: 533–536, 2001.
17. Lambert, MI, Dugas, JP, Kirkman, MC, Mokone, GG, and
Waldeck, MR. Changes in running speeds in a 100 km ultra-
marathon race. J Sports Sci Med 3: 167–173, 2004.
18. Loftin, M, Sothern, M, Tuuri, G, Tompkins, C, Koss, C, and
Bonis, M. Gender comparison of physiologic and perceptual
responses in recreation marathon runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
4: 307–316, 2009.
19. March, D, Vanderburgh, P, Titlebaum, P, and Hoops, M. Age, sex,
and finish time as determinants of pacing in the marathon. J Strength
Conditioning Res 25: 386–391, 2011.
20. Mattern, CO, Kenefick, RW, Kertzer, R, and Quinn, TJ. Impact of
starting strategy on cycling performance. Int J Sports Med 22: 350–
355, 2001.
21. McCann, DJ and Adams, WC. Wet bulb globe temperature index
and performance in competitive distance runners. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 29: 955–961, 1997.
22. Roberts, WO. Determining a “do not start” temperature for the
marathon on the basis of adverse outcomes. Med Sci Sports Exerc
42: 226–232, 2010.
23. Ruby, BC and Robergs, RA. Gender differences in substrate
utilization during exercise. Sports Med 17: 393–410, 1994.
24. Shvartz, E, Saar, E, and Benor, D. Physique and heat tolerance in
hot-dry and hot-humid environments. J Appl Physiol 34: 799–803,
1973.
25. Speechly, DP, Taylor, SR, and Rogers, GG. Differences in ultra–
endurance exercise in performance–matched male and female
runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 359–365, 1996.
26. Tarnopolsky, MA. Gender differences in substrate metabolism
during endurance exercise. Can J Appl Physiol 25: 312–327, 2000.
27. Venables, MC, Achten, J, and Jeukendrup, AE. Determinants of fat
oxidation during exercise in healthy men and women: a cross
sectional study. J Appl Physiol 98: 160–167, 2005.